Various Essays on Social Theory: Further Contributions to the World of Thought

Aaron Scott Robertson

 About the Author

Aaron Robertson is currently in his fifth year at Cardinal Stritch University in Milwaukee, WI

where he is serving as the President of the Student Government Association for the 2005-06

academic year. He majors in Political Science, minors in both Sociology and Philosophy, and is

working toward a 12-credit certificate in Leadership. It is his hope to teach someday at the

college level and write works of political, social, and economic thought. In February 2005, he

self-published his first book (actually considered a pamphlet by international standards),

Menshevism Reconsidered: Is Globalization a Stepping Stone to International Socialism, and the

Speech, Space Exploration: A Uniting Force for All of Humanity. “Menshevism Reconsidered,”

a paper started in January 2003, theorizes how global capitalism could lead to socialism on an

international level, not by violent, artificial revolution, but by peaceful, natural evolution. “Space

Exploration,” a speech written in April 2004, argues for continued space exploration as a means

of uniting the world through scientific achievement. The author lives in Muskego, WI.

About the Book

Various Essays on Social Theory is a collection of essays written during the course of the

author’s college years at Cardinal Stritch University. The collection spans a wide array of social

topics, from the origins of America’s power elite, to reflections on the institution of marriage,

examinations of the lives and works of individual sociologists, the impact of the city on the

individual, social psychology, censorship, relationships, an overview of the author’s philosophy

of history, and the impact of psychology on economics. For each essay, a date is listed on the

cover page. This denotes when it was originally written. If a paper was originally written for a

2
class, was presented at a conference, was previously published, and/or won some sort of prize, a

footnote on its cover page will provide such details.

Again, to my parents, Tim and Marilyn, and to all of my friends at Cardinal Stritch University,

who have encouraged me over the years to follow my dreams, no matter how big they may seem.

3
Copyright 2005 by Aaron Scott Robertson. Nothing in this book may be duplicated without the
expressed written consent of the author, except in the case of brief excerpts used in critical
reviews.

Self-published by means of the author’s website, http://asrobertson2005.tripod.com, in

September 2005 and also printed at Cardinal Stritch University in Milwaukee, WI in a print run
of 100 copies produced in December 2005.

For further information, write:

Aaron Robertson
Cardinal Stritch University
6801 North Yates Road, Box 246
Milwaukee, WI 53217

4
 Table of Contents:

The American Elite………………………………………………………………………………..7

Chapter I: “Introduction”………………………………………………………………………….8

Chapter II: “C. Wright Mills and The Power Elite”………………………………………………8

Chapter III: “Max Weber: Class and Status”…………………………………………………….10

Chapter IV: “The Role of Institutions in Individuals Coming to Power”………………………..13

Chapter V: “Michael Moore and Stupid White Men”…………………………………………...15

Chapter VI: “Conclusions”………………………………………………………………………17

A Philosophy of Marriage………………………………………………………………………..19

The Sociology and Economics of Marriage……………………………………………………...23

An Examination of the Sociology of Georg Simmel…………………………………………….27

Chapter I: “Introduction”………………………………………………………………………...28

Chapter II: “A Biographical/Historical/Cultural Sketch”..………………………………………28

Chapter III: “An Examination of Simmel’s Work”……………………………………………...30

Chapter IV: “Conclusions”………………………………………………………………………34

An Examination of Erving Goffman……………………………………………………………..35

Exploring the Issue of Censorship……………………………………………………………….41

Sex: Is it Really All Men Seek?………………………………………………………………….47

My Overall Philosophy of History……………………………………………………………….49

On the Correlation Between Personal/Social Psychology and the Health of Money

Economy…………………………………………………………………………………………52

Chapter I: Introduction to the Problematic………………………………………………………53

5
Chapter II: The American Philosophy of Individualism: Rewards and Consequences………….54

Chapter III: The Need for a Healthy Dose of Nationalism and Internationalism………………..55

Chapter IV: The Psychological Fear Preventing a Continuously Healthy Economy……………55

Chapter V: Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….56

Works Cited.……………………………………………………………………………………..58

6
 The American Elite

January 20031

1
This paper was originally written for an Independent Study for Sociology credit. It is presented
here in its original form, and hence the format used for citing is MLA style. In January of 2005,
this paper won at the school level of a national writing contest. The prize included $30 and
recognition in the campus bulletin.

7
 I

Introduction

We often hear of a “second government” running this country. How did this elite class

come to be, and who belongs to it? What are the interests of this ruling body, and how does it

affect the mass majority of people in this country? These are the very questions that I will

attempt to provide answers to. In this attempt, I will make use of two works: The Power Elite by

the sociologist C. Wright Mills, and Stupid White Men by author, film maker, and activist

Michael Moore. I will also briefly refer to the famed sociologist Max Weber and his definitions

of the terms “class” and “status.” Besides giving his definitions of the terms, I will offer

examples of the distinctions between the two that perhaps a common person will be able to

understand. I will close that part of the work by briefly discussing two well-known American

families of recent times, the Kennedys and Rockefellers, and describe where they fit into

Weber’s distinction. An inquiry into the role of institutions in aiding the individual’s rise to

wealth and influence will also be addressed. Max Weber had a lot to say about the role of

institutions in his work on what he called “Rationality.” Throughout the work, I will of course,

incorporate my own thoughts and insights, and will close with final comments and a general

conclusion of who make up the American elite. It must be understood that the American elite did

not come to be overnight. No one person is responsible; no one historical development can

explain it. Rather, it is a complex combination of persons and developments over time.

II

C. Wright Mills and The Power Elite

8
 Let us now examine The Power Elite. This work is a classic example of social science, an

intellectual analysis combining historical, economic, political, and cultural observations to

explain the rise of the elite in this country. In the eyes of the author, those who make up this elite

are, “…the leading men in each of the three domains of power-the warlords, the corporation

chieftains, the political directorate-tend to come together, to form the power elite of America”

(9). When did this elite group come into being? As Mills points out, the economy really begins to

go national, and the “in” crowd really becomes obvious, shortly after the Civil War. In fact,

beginning in the 1880’s, a New York bachelor began publishing the Social Register, which

provided the names and contact information of those who possessed the wealth and enjoyed the

social status in New York. Soon, volumes were published for other major cities such as Boston

and Chicago. According to Mills, “…it is the nearest thing to an official status center that this

country, with no aristocratic past, no court society, no truly capitol city, possesses” (57). This

statement makes perfect sense. This nation is very young, and because of this, unlike the Romans

and Greeks, it lacks aristocratic heritage. Unlike France or England, it lacks a legacy of royalty.

As far as the comment on the capitol city is concerned, this country lacks a true capitol in the

sense that, in Europe and throughout history, especially during the time of the great empires, the

political capitol was and is usually the economic as well. The United States stands out insofar as

the District of Columbia is the political capitol, New York the economic.

Before the economy went national, it was of course, local and decentralized. Hence, the

wealthy families of the country were only known throughout a particular region. It is when the

economy goes national that this all changes. The families become well known throughout the

country. Soon, arranged marriages to fellow elites in other cities and towns are planned so that

the families can extend their influence and keep their financial wealth from deteriorating. Over

9
time, these privileged people have extended their influence into politics, the military, and of

course, business. Hence, as time went on, the elite have gone from a scattered body to one that is

highly centralized. It is important to remember what Mills states about the membership of this

group: “A stable upper class with a really fixed membership does not exist; but an upper social

class does exist. Change in the membership of a class, no matter how rapid, does not destroy the

class” (53). This is also understandable, and it can be seen in practice. For example, if someone

were to win the big jackpot in the lottery, that person can now join the ranks of the elite. On the

contrary, a person already belonging to this class may lose a good portion of his/her wealth on

investments, therefore losing membership in this class. It can all be traced to the capitalist

economic order, which has been known to be unpredictable and unstable. Someone, at any given

time, may gain or lose, make or bust. The important thing to keep in mind though, as Mills

states, is that the class is not destroyed. It is, and will remain, intact. The elites will always be

there, though the persons may change.

Another important feature of the elite of America is that, and as he points out, “the model

of the upper social classes is still ‘pure’ by race, by ethnic group, by national extraction. In each

city, they tend to be Protestant…” (60). This statement holds true. As we have seen continuously

throughout American history, most government, corporate, and military officials have been

Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Every American President has been Protestant, besides John F.

Kennedy who was a Roman Catholic, and almost all have come from English-Irish-Scottish

paternal ancestry. Today, despite efforts to advance the status of women and minorities in this

country, this group still heavily dominates the elite; in fact, it is still a virtual monopoly.

III

Max Weber: Class and Status

10
 We often think of “class” and “status” as being one in the same. They can be, but it is not

always so. Accordingly, I felt it necessary to incorporate the sociologist Max Weber’s distinction

of the two terms into my research. It must be remembered that Weber heavily influenced Mills,

and so to go directly to the source of much of Mills’ thought is fitting. According to the book

Sociological Lives and Ideas: An Introduction to the Classical Theorists, written by Fred C.

Pampel, “Weber defined classes as groups that share similar life chances” (104). He “…defined

status in terms of social evaluation or prestige rather than objective economic position” (104).

So, we see that the two are quite different, but they can also go together of course. He associated

class with economic success. Status however, can be associated with inherited wealth spanning

generations, education at prestigious institutions, travel, distinctive appearance and talk, and so

on. The people who possess this status may also work for charities or support other large

organizations. Let us examine this for a moment. I mentioned the person winning the lottery’s

jackpot before, but I wish to look into the event deeper. That person, as I stated, now has

immense wealth and now has a claim in the upper class. However, s/he lacks status because s/he

lacks prestige, which is something that only time can bring. That person is what is often called

“new money,” because a family line of wealth and/or titleholders has not been established. The

person may not even be educated, may not be much of a traveler, may not be known much, and

may not own a lot.

An example of this notion of “new money” that comes to mind is found in the 1997 film

Titanic, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, and Kathy Bates. Bates plays the role of

Molly Brown, a real character who survived the event. Brown had recently come into a fortune

with her husband in the gold mining business. Throughout the movie, there are many scenes that

show the members of the “old money” class looking down upon her for lacking the prestige that

11
they and their families come from. Getting back to the idea that the two terms do not always fit

together, let us consider an English person. S/he may descend from a long line of titleholders and

may even be one him/herself. However, S/he is not necessarily wealthy. Despite the absence of

immense wealth, others may still classify that person as having status and prestige simply

because of that person’s family history. The wealth can run out, and a person can still have

status. I refer to England simply because it has a long history of noble families and titles, and

therefore, there are a lot of Brits that can trace back their family histories to nobles.

One more simple example that I can offer that ties into the example of the lottery winner

and the story of Molly Brown somewhat, and has happened many times before in America, is a

person who has built wealth through such means as entrepreneurship, investments, and saving. In

fact, many of today’s elites have built up their wealth in this fashion within a generation or two.

Where do famous American families like the Kennedys and Rockefellers come into this

discussion? Both of them, in my opinion, rely on status, and I will explain why. Many members

of the Kennedy family have held high-ranking government positions. Joseph P., the family’s

patriarch, served as Ambassador to the United Kingdom under the administration of Franklin

Roosevelt. His son John of course served as President of the United States, and John’s younger

brother Robert as U.S. Attorney General. He also made a bid for President before he was

assassinated. Edward (Ted), the youngest sibling of John and Robert, is a long time prominent

U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. All of them received excellent educations at prestigious Ivy

League Universities, built prominent careers, participated in charities, traveled, and their

descendants still have the massive compounds in Florida and Massachusetts that Joseph

purchased. Today’s Kennedy family would be classified under “status” because its members are

known for their name-their family’s prominent background. The same applies to the modern

12
Rockefeller family, whose members are known and respected because of the achievements of

their forefathers, who were prominent businessmen and office holders including governorships.

IV

The Role of Institutions in Individuals Coming to Power

Max Weber described Rationality, an inevitable process in which large bureaucracies

form in a capitalist society. These bureaucracies are found both in government bodies as well as

private enterprise. For instance, the state builds up its bureaucracy with the military, government

sponsored social agencies, tax collecting agencies, and any other duties that the government sees

fit. Let us however discuss the building of bureaucracy within private enterprise, because this is

crucial to the report as a whole.

When Mills described the economy in the post-Civil War days, businesses, for the most

part, were owned and operated by the same person or family. Corporations were still not too

prevalent, though they were starting to show up on the scene. Through time however, an

overwhelming majority of businesses have changed from this notion of traditional ownership and

operation, to ones being owned by shareholders through the sale of stock, and managers who run

the operations of the business for the shareholders and are subject to them. Usually in these

companies, there is a CEO-a Chief Executive Officer-who serves as the “head” manager. These

managers, along with other members of the company’s managerial hierarchy, are usually entitled

to generous bonuses, stock options, and in some instances, homes provided for them

compliments of the company. “Traditional” owners, as I refer to them, have lost much of their

influence, as these gigantic corporations have come to dominate business, hence the term “big

business.” Today’s traditional owners mostly own small businesses such as grocery stores,

family restaurants, repair garages, small family owned pharmacies (excluding Walgreen’s of

13
course) and the like. They do not possess much wealth, and are always in the shadow of these

corporations, trying to compete with them and stay a float, but usually to no avail. Many of these

small businesses eventually close down shop as a result of the inability to compete.

Most recently, many corporate scandals have occurred in which executives tried to

influence the price of their company’s stock, or in the case of the most famous incident, done by

executives of the now bankrupt Enron, had knowledge that the corporation was in serious

financial turmoil but did not inform the shareholders or the general public. Instead they

attempted to hide the real situation. While Enron was going into bankruptcy, and employees and

other shareholders were losing everything, some even near their whole retirements, the

“corporation chieftains” as Mills calls them, were building lavish homes in Florida ranging in

cost between 100-300 million dollars. Even court proceedings and Senate inquiries into the

massive corporation’s downfall did not stop construction. As one sees, it is through these

institutions that one has acquired such wealth and influence. Much of the money that these

chieftains make is placed into the war chests of politicians for campaign use. Both of the major

political parties in the United States, but especially the Republican Party, are guilty of taking

such donations. In return for contributing to the campaigns of victorious candidates, the pressure

is placed on them to return the debt with favors that benefit big business and its allies. So one

now clearly sees the relationship between the “corporation chieftains” and the “political

directorate.”

What about the “Warlords,” those in the military and its allies? Where do they fit into this

triumvirate of power? Well, the corporations that build tanks, airplanes, make guns, etc., are in

the hands of shareholders in the realm of the private sector. They are not run by the state. As

many other companies from the various industries do, the companies in this industry contribute

14
to political campaigns as well. If the candidates claim victory, proper etiquette dictates that they

are obligated to return the favor with generous government contracts, tax benefits, and the like.

Also, many officeholders have served in the military themselves, and so it is natural to reward

and aid the military when they have achieved the rank of public servant. Talking about this

particular issue, Mills states, “Some professional soldiers have stepped out of their military roles

into other higher realms of American life” (198). Among this list include Presidents Grant and

Eisenhower, both famed Generals, and on a lesser degree, Presidents Kennedy and Bush, who

served in World War II along with Eisenhower. Two notable statesmen today include Arizona

Senator John McCain, a Vietnam veteran who survived as a Prisoner of War (POW), and now

U.S. Secretary of State Collin Powell, who served as a General during the Gulf War of the early

1990s and on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Michael Moore and Stupid White Men

Michael Moore, as I stated in my introduction, is an author, filmmaker, and activist. His

books and documentaries have exposed a lot of political and corporate corruption in America

over the last decade and a half or so. He is not a social scientist, and therefore his works are

popularly written. Nonetheless, he uses many facts and informed opinions to give us an accurate,

no-nonsense view of the political and corporate world. He loves to add humor to his works as

well, sometimes throwing out obscene words that the reader would not expect just for shock

value.

Moore is a liberal, who clearly defends the belief that Al Gore legitimately won the

Presidency of the United States. So his book strongly attacks the current Republican

Administration. One may think that he is biased and that I may also be biased for using his book

15
then. It must be understood though that he also attacks members of the Democratic Party in the

work, those who have softened their stands over the years in his eyes, and views Ralph Nader’s

claim that both parties are two factions of the same corporate party as being legitimate.

In the first chapter, Moore lists all of the members of President Bush’s Cabinet and

describes their previous (and current) vested business interests. Some of the business interests

that stand out in my mind are Vice President Dick Cheney’s position as, “…CEO of Halliburton

Industries, an oil services company that has dealings with repressive governments like Burma

and Iraq,” (16) or the $50,000 that Attorney General John Ashcroft received from the

pharmaceutical giant Schering-Plough, “…perhaps as a thank-you for the bill he had introduced

that would have extended the company’s patent on the allergy pill Claritin” (17). The bill failed

anyway, but it goes to show that these statesmen are very much close allies with the corporate

world. Describing National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Moore states, “For her service on

Chevron’s board of directors Rice had a 130,000-ton oil tanker named after her” (24). This is

only a sampling of statistics that represent a small portion of the Cabinet members. Also,

President Bush’s fundraising team set fundraising records during his race for the Presidency, all

corporate donations of course.

Throughout the book, Moore talks about racism in this country, attacks hypocrites, calls

President Bush “Idiot-In-Chief,” describes in detail the ever worsening environment in this

country, and has a field day bringing to light old political and corporate scandals. Mills’

statements about the relationship between Anglo-Saxon Protestantism and the elite class are also

backed up in Moore’s work, hence the title Stupid White Men. Condoleeza Rice and Collin

Powell, both African-American, are perhaps the only minorities described in the work that would

be excluded from that category, though both are indeed Protestant.

16
 VI

Conclusions

From the works and illustrated examples, we can arrive at some basic conclusions of who

make up the elite in America and how they came to be. We’ve established that the elite class

itself will still remain despite changes in membership. The capitalist economic order, being as

unpredictable and unstable as it is much of the time, gives way for this fluctuation of class

membership to occur. People can make or bust as we say. The terms “class” and “status,” though

they may work in conjunction with one another, have two very distinct meanings. The former is

based on economic success while the latter is based on prestige and family lineage. Anyone may

come into economic success and hence become a member of the elite class. Not everyone

however, can have a prestigious background, which only time and past generations in one’s

family can bring. Just about all of today’s elite fit the description of “class.” While America is

too young to have an aristocratic past, nor did it ever have a legacy of royalty, there have been

and are a number of highly prestigious American families-two families of recent times often

cited are the Kennedys and the Rockefellers. However, they do not accurately represent the bulk

of the American elite. As stated, most fit the definition of “class” and do not come from very

wealthy and prominent lines. Many have built their wealth and influence up within a generation

or two.

We have also established that most of the elite exercise their wealth and influence

through institutions, such as the office of CEO of a corporation, U.S. government offices,

especially that of President, and so forth. Should the individual retire or die, the institution,

which is the source of one’s path to power, continues on and the next individual in the line of

17
succession is elevated. Weber described this process in what he called “Rationality,” an

inevitable consequence in a capitalist society where institutions become full-scale bureaucracies.

Both government and private entities are subject to this inevitable law. Mills applied this theory

specifically to America, and Moore does a terrific job, in my opinion, of proving Mills’ thoughts

right by showing the interrelationships between government, military, and corporate officials and

institutions. Traditionally, members of the American elite, mostly male, have come from Anglo-

Saxon Protestant backgrounds. This notion still holds true today, despite efforts to help women

and minorities achieve such success. All of these elements, and all of these persons, make up, the

American elite.

One thing I do not understand is why such study is called merely a “theory.” I suppose it

is called so because it is abstract. We cannot really see with our eyes what is described in the

works of Mills, Weber, Marx, Durkheim, and the other great social scientists and philosophers

that have left us with such tremendous literature. At the same time however, we can see these

words in motion. One thing for sure is that Mills left us with a clear picture of who the American

elite is and how the class formed over time. Adding Moore’s words, though they are not those of

a social scientist, helps to illustrate Mills’ work by describing the current Administration and its

connections with the military and big business. Though Moore only describes those elites of

today, surely, there were elites before them, so we still have an accurate picture of Presidential

Administrations of past years, and of the wealthy businessmen who have worked in and through

the political system to achieve favorable results for them.

18
A Philosophy of Marriage

June 2004

19
 While examining a number of case studies in our Ethics textbook (Ethics and College

Student Life by Kenneth A. Strike and Pamela A. Moss, Second Edition) one day in class, one

particular case stood out for me. The first case study in Chapter Eight, titled “Finding Herself,”

told the story of a middle-aged woman who had married fresh out of high school. For all these

years, she had devoted her life to performing the typical duties associated with being a wife and

mother. Now, she found herself wanting to gain more independence and the opportunity to truly

discover herself. One of the ways to accomplish this she realized was to enroll in college courses.

I have held views on the issue of marriage for at least a couple of years now but have

never thought about recording them. Having read this case study however has prompted me to do

so, as it is certainly a topic worthy of attention. My analysis of the institution of marriage will

incorporate a mixture of philosophical, psychological, political, social, and economic thought.

Sadly, many women, upon entering the bond of marriage, even today in a supposedly

more liberal age, find themselves falling into a subservient role. Any possibilities of a career and

at least a somewhat independent identity are placed on hold, many times indefinitely, for the

sake of the household.

When we discuss the issue of marriage, we hear terms such as husband, wife, spouse, and

marriage partner. I wish to focus on the term marriage partner for a moment. When we hear the

word partner, we picture (or should picture) someone who is on an equal footing with another

person in a mutually agreed upon relationship. For example, let us consider for a moment a

business partner. S/he has an equal say as to how the business should be operated. However, in

the case of the term marriage partner, that notion of an equal footing that the word partner

implies has been lost.

20
 Marriage, in my opinion, can be a meaningful, fulfilling, worthwhile institution. I would

disagree with anyone who says that it is “useless” or “outdated.” I am in strong agreement

however, that the institution of marriage is in need of a serious transformation. There is no doubt

that a considerable amount of progress has been made in the last century as women have gained

more societal rights and freedoms, but there remains a long journey ahead. Many women are still

trapped in that subservient role. This may explain then why many younger women are holding

off on marriage and why those who have been married for a while are looking to get divorced,

and who can blame them?

This is why it is so important that we return the definition of partner back to the word

partner in the term marriage partner. Men who are in marriages need to come to the realization

that their spouses are human beings as well. Like all human beings, they need to find a sense of

purpose in their lives. Being forced to stay at home in order to look after the children and tend to

the house is not all that rewarding.

What is to be done then? First, men in marriages (and those preparing for marriage) have

to realize that they agreed to be marriage partners, that is, they agreed to share life together with

their spouses or soon to be spouses. This means that instead of having a sharply divided division

of labor in the household (for example: the husband brings home the paycheck, maintains the

lawn, sees that the cars are maintained, etc. and the wife cooks, does laundry, takes care of the

children, etc.), tasks are done together. By adhering to this simple principle, it removes an

enormous amount of stress from both spouses, especially the wife. With less stress and more free

time, she is free to pursue other activities. When such a stringent divide in tasks exists, it is as if

the two spouses are living separate and distinct lives as opposed to living as true partners, going

through life together.

21
 Second, and pertaining somewhat to my first point regarding the traditional scheme of

labor in the household, men need to learn to reject chauvinism. It is chauvinism that contributes a

large amount to keeping that division of labor that I previously mentioned intact. There are many

men, young and old, who are still convinced that laundry and cleaning the house are tasks fitted

solely for women. As far as cooking goes, these men view it as being beyond their scope, a task

best left to those men who are professional chefs. So, chauvinism must be overcome. I personally

enjoy cooking and take great pride and care in it. I also garden, do laundry, and clean my house,

and I do not feel like less of a man for doing so. I still mow the lawn and maintain my cars, and I

do not feel like more of a man for doing so. These are just tasks that have to get done by

someone.

Last, on the political/social/economic scene, all of us, men and women together, must

continue to press for further progress in the area of women’s’ rights and freedoms in society.

While we have come a long way, job discrimination and even discrimination in regards to some

educational opportunities still exist. Concerning wages, it is fact that women still earn less

income than men for the same work.

22
The Sociology and Economics of Marriage

September 2004

23
 I would like to take time to follow up on my previous article on the subject of marriage

titled “A Philosophy of Marriage.” However, for this reflection, I shall primarily focus on the

economic forces, that, sadly, interfere with this most noble institution, thus causing a

deterioration of the romantic/emotional aspect of the institution.

Karl Marx was right. Whether one subscribes to his call for socialism or not, one

certainly cannot deny that he was correct in saying that the economic sphere has come to

dominate all other spheres of life. Not even the institution of marriage is immune from this

domination of the economic forces. In the course “Sociology of Work” recently, marriage was

defined as primarily being an economic union, as opposed to say, an emotional union, or

romantic union, which one would most likely expect to hear the term defined as. This is sad but

at the same time it is true. Today, more and more people marry due to the economic forces that

surround them. Ironically, at the same time, more and more people are also divorcing due to

these factors. This scenario specifically applies to the United States, which has both the highest

marriage and the highest divorce rates in the world. Let us explore this further, as it is most

worthy of our observation.

There is a growing trend, especially in the United States, of lower wages due to such

factors as the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, particularly good manufacturing jobs

traditionally known for their good pay and benefits, and also due to the decline of the once strong

labor movement. As a result of declining wages, both men and women find themselves working

longer to make up for this fact. Many work multiple jobs. More and more, we see married

women having to go to work in order to relieve some of the burden that is faced by their

husbands and that is caused by the wage situation. This of course, is a general statement. As we

know, there are women who go to work simply for the sake of being able to get out of the house

24
and be more independent. However, I do believe that the former statement holds more truth than

the latter, that being that women must work due to these economic factors.

With both spouses working, this can apply strain on what is meant to be a beautiful,

loving, emotional bond. For example, with both working, there is less time to spend and grow

together in this union. When both come home from work, both are usually tired and perhaps even

ornery. All they wish to do is eat and rest up for the next day of this seemingly unending cycle of

economic strain. This is how marriages end often times, due to the lack of quality time together.

And, as I have made it a point to demonstrate, the reason for this lack of quality time is due to

these economic forces that we possess little to no control over.

At the same time, the case can easily be made that these very same economic factors,

which lead to the deterioration of marriages, are also the reason why many people marry today.

The argument is quite clear: With two people combining their incomes, each individual in the

union has more buying power at their disposal. For example, a single woman and a single man,

both living alone, may only be able to afford an apartment on their incomes. Combined however,

they can now afford a house. And with two people working, there is less of a strain on each

individual in the union.

In closing, it is clear that Karl Marx, though one can easily debate his proposed solution

to the problems of capitalism, was certainly correct in pointing out the dominance of the

economic sphere over all others. And if we wish to restore the romantic/emotional aspect to the

institution of marriage, it is clear that reforms must be made in the economic sphere, as well as in

the political and social, to alleviate this most serious problem. An increase in the minimum wage,

the restoration of benefits, and a slower pace (U.S. workers lead the way in the most hours spent

25
working) can only produce good for our society, especially when it comes to the sphere of

marriage/family life.

26
 An Examination of the Sociology of Georg Simmel

October 20041

1
This paper was originally written for an Independent Study for Sociology credit.

27
 Introduction

In this paper, I shall explore the life and work of Georg Simmel, a German Philosopher

and Sociologist of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I will begin by offering a brief

biographical/historical/cultural sketch so that the reader will better understand the climate that

Simmel came out of, which is of utter importance in order to understand both his philosophy and

sociology. I will then proceed to examine the following works of his: “How is Society Possible?”

The Metropolis and Mental Life, “Conflict,” and The Stranger. Emphasis will be on The

Metropolis. I will close by offering my own thoughts on Simmel and his work.

II

A Biographical/Historical/Cultural Sketch

Georg Simmel was born on March 1, 1858 in Berlin, Germany. His father died when he

was 16. More Sadly, Georg was never really attached to his family, as he found his mother to be

“domineering and suffocating,” and never seemed to have interest in keeping in contact with his

six older siblings.2

After the passing of his father, who owned a part of a chocolate factory, a family friend

was appointed as his guardian. He owned a reputable music-publishing house and was able to

leave the young Simmel a fortune upon his death. Simmel would use this money to live off of for

most of his life, thus leaving him the time to devote to his intellectual pursuits.3

In 1876, Simmel entered the University of Berlin to study History, but soon changed to

Philosophy. He received his doctorate in Philosophy in 1881 for his dissertation on “The Nature

of Matter According to Kant’s Physical Monadology.” His wide range of interests also led him to

include Medieval Italian and the Italian poet Francesco Petrarch in his doctoral studies.4
2
Fred C. Pampel, Sociological Lives and Ideas, (New York: Worth Publishers, 2000), 129.
3
Ibid., 131.
4
Kurt H. Wolff (ed.), The Sociology of Georg Simmel, (New York: The Free Press, 1950), xviii.

28
 Simmel started his academic career in 1885, when he became a lecturer at the University

of Berlin, which was an unpaid position. He would hold that position until 1900, when he was

promoted to professor extraordinary. The promotion was only in title however, as this too was an

unpaid position. He would retain that position until he was finally awarded a full professorship at

the University of Strasbourg in 1914. He would remain at Strasbourg until his death at the age of

60 in 1918. Along with Max Weber, a reputable German scholar and another founder of modern

sociology, Simmel founded in 1910, the German Sociological Association.5

As was previously mentioned, Simmel pursued a wide range of interests. He loved to

socialize with musicians, scientists, artists, poets, and scholars of all types. He even married a

painter, Gertrude Kinel, in 1890.6 His well-rounded style however, did not always prove to be the

best approach. Many of his colleagues in the academic world looked down on him for not

focusing on one area of study and working to systematically build on that one area. This may

have played a big role in keeping him from obtaining a full professorship until a few years prior

to his death.7 In addition, even though he did not practice any religion, and even though his

parents had converted to Christianity, he came from Jewish origins, which also may have been a

major contributing factor, as anti-Semitism in Germany was rampant.8

In his sociology, Simmel attempted to demonstrate how the very structures that facilitate

social interaction went against the interests of the individual.9 He was, in essence, a “Nietzchean

promoter of individuality against communality; his thought was firmly rooted in the cultural

5
Literature Resource Center—Author Resource Pages. http://0-
galenet.galegroup.com.topcat.switchinc.org/servlet/LitRC?vrsn=3&OP=contains…
6
Pampel, 129.
7
Ibid., 130.
8
Literature Resource Center—Author Resource Pages.
9
Ibid.

29
landscape of the city and had nothing to do with regressive nostalgia or pastoral sentiment.”10 We

shall see how this is true momentarily.

III

An Examination of Simmel’s Work

Simmel’s work titled “How is Society Possible?”11 appeared in volume 16 (1910-11) of

the American Journal of Sociology. It lays the philosophical groundwork that is necessary to

understand the existence of society. He refers to Kant’s question “how is nature possible?” and

goes on to give Kant’s answer to that question. Kant argued that “nature” is created out of the

individual’s consciousness, through the individual’s senses. In other words, “nature” is

subjective, subject to the perception(s) of each individual. Simmel, in answering his question

“how is society possible?” argued that society is objective. It has always existed, and shall

continue to exist, outside of the individual’s perception(s).

The next work that we will proceed to examine is The Metropolis and Mental Life,12

originally written in 1903. In this work, Simmel argued that the city and the individual collide on

many levels. For example, human beings are by nature social beings. In the metropolis, in the

city, live many human beings. So, by that statement, one may assume then that a city is a perfect

setting for humans to reside, since they can fulfill their nature as social beings. However, this is

not the case, because too many humans reside in the city, thus causing the individual to be

reduced to essentially a mere number, essentially non-existent, rather than being recognized as

the human being that s/he is. Because there are too many people residing in the metropolis, each

10
Galin Tihanov, “Georg Simmel and Avant-Garde Sociology,” (Book Review) The Journal of
European Studies, December 2002 v32 i4 p417(2).
11
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3113/simmel/society.
12
http://condor.depaul.edu/~dweinste/intro/simmel_M&ML.htm.

30
individual finds him/herself detached. Close relationships can be difficult to form. Even many

neighbors do not know one another.

This can easily be contrasted to small towns, where one feels more “at home,” where

everyone seems to know and look out for one another. Close relationships can be formed much

more easily in small towns because the lack of an excessive number of residents and the

everyday hustle and bustle of the metropolis allows for a significantly calmer, quiet, relaxing

setting.

Simmel also pointed out the economics of the metropolis. The following passage explains

how city economics has made even the once personable activity of shopping detaching:

In the sphere of the economic psychology of the small group it is of importance that
under primitive conditions production serves the customer who orders the good, so that
the producer and the consumer are acquainted. The modern metropolis, however, is
supplied almost entirely by production for the market, that is, for entirely unknown
purchasers who never personally enter the producer’s actual field of vision. Through this
anonymity the interests of each party acquire an unmerciful matter-of-factness; and the
intellectually calculating economic egoisms of both parties need not fear any deflection
because of the imponderables of personal relationships.13

Even with all of the negative attributes that Simmel points out concerning the nature of

the metropolis, there is an interesting paradox that he discusses. Though humans are by nature

social beings, and as a result of that nature wish to form close, meaningful relationships with

others, humans by their nature also wish to be free, to be independent. Hence, the metropolis,

because it causes the individuals residing in it to become detached from one another, grants those

individuals total freedom. This remarkable observation that Simmel points out here grants

credibility to the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre’s famous quote decades later that we are

all condemned to be free, although Sartre was not speaking it in a sociological context. So, even

though we as human beings seek close bonds with others by our very nature, we also, at the same
13
Ibid.

31
time, want independence as the result of that same nature, and the metropolis, by its very

structure, allows for that.

So, as the reader can see, Simmel goes back and forth in demonstrating both the strengths

and weaknesses of the metropolis. However, it appears that the negative attributes of the

metropolis eventually gain the edge. In describing how the specialization of labor in the

metropolis causes everyone to be dependent upon one another for the daily economic and social

needs of the metropolis, Simmel writes:

The individual has become a mere cog in an enormous organization of things and powers
which tear from his hands all progress, spirituality, and value in order to transform them
from their subjective form into the form of a purely objective life...The atrophy of
individual culture through the hypertrophy of objective culture is one reason for the bitter
hatred which the preachers of the most extreme individualism, above all Nietzsche,
harbor against the metropolis. But it is, indeed, also a reason why these preachers are so
passionately loved in the metropolis and why they appear to the metropolitan man as the
prophets and saviors of his most unsatisfied yearnings...The carrier of man’s values is no
longer the “general human being” in every individual, but rather man’s qualitative
uniqueness and irreplaceability.14

So, as we can see by Simmel’s powerful words in the above passage, the metropolis has

essentially taken away from the individual the “general human being” as he calls it, meaning the

all-around talents and craftsmanship which the individual originally possesses. That well-

rounded artisanship eventually becomes dulled, as the metropolis, by its very mechanisms that

allow it to exist, place the individual in a highly specialized area of work, so that the individual

only focuses on that one area, eventually forgetting other skills.

We can say, in concluding the examination of this particular work, that Simmel did an

excellent job in objectively describing the dealings of a major city. He was always known for his

cool, calm, objective approach when it came to his analyses. A good part of that is due to the fact

that he never participated much in politics or other large-scale social dealings or movements, like
14
Ibid.

32
many other scholars of the same era (e.g. Weber) did. By not participating in much of anything,

he was able to step back and see his topics with a keen vision.

“Conflict,”15 originally written in 1908, argues that conflict is natural and healthy for

society, as it is conflict that is continually leading to the development of progress. Simmel states

that “An absolutely centripetal and harmonious group, a pure “unification,” not only is

empirically unreal, it could show no real life process.” So, he is going so far as to say that not

only is conflict a natural, healthy, and necessary part of society, but without it there is no life.

This is a logical statement because change is a constant, an undeniable fact of life as the result of

our existence in space-time. Simmel goes on to offer the example of the society of saints in

Dante’s Paradise. Because the society of saints exists outside of space-time, change, and hence

conflict, does not exist. It does exist however in Raphael’s Disputa, which portrays the Church

Fathers, in space-time.

Finally, The Stranger,16 also originally composed in 1908, described how a person can be

so close, yet at the same time so very distant, to others living in the same society. He went on to

describe the European Jew, who is, in all practicality, a citizen of any particular European

country like everyone else. However, at the same time, the European Jew is a stranger, insofar as

his/her roots are not organic to the society that s/he is living in as a part of. There is a certain

peculiarity about the stranger, who for all purposes of geography and perhaps even culture, is the

same as everyone else, yet detached from it simultaneously.

IV

Conclusions

15
Donald N. Levine (ed.), Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms, (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1971).
16
Ibid.

33
 I very much enjoyed studying the life and work of one of the great modern founders of

the discipline of sociology. Unfortunately, I can see that Simmel does not receive the treatment

that is due him. He seems to be too overshadowed by the likes of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber.

As I mentioned in the section dealing with Simmel’s biography, the fact that he varied so greatly

in his interests and writings has most likely contributed to this overshadowing. Also, because of

that same fact, he did not establish a particular school of thought and hence has no real academic

heirs, only a small group with a somewhat similar style. The last few years has seen a revival in

interest in Simmel and his work however, and it is only fitting, since he was obviously great

enough to go down in history as one of the “big four” founders of modern social science.

What I find so fascinating with Simmel’s work is that it is timeless. For example, The

Metropolis and the Mental Life contains truths that we can observe in city life today, over a

century after he penned that work. The same holds true with the other classical theorists. For

example, the findings in Weber’s 1905 work The Protestant Ethic still hold strong today, as it is

mainly Protestants that hold the top positions in the world of business. The contradictions that

Marx pointed out in the capitalist economic order will always hold true. Durkheim’s observation

that the non-religious were most likely to commit suicide still holds true. Such is the goal and the

legacy of sociology—to create timeless classics containing timeless truths.

34
 An Examination of Erving Goffman

November 20041

Erving Goffman, A Canadian sociologist famous for his work in the sociological school

of thought known as Symbolic-Interactionism, was born on June 11, 1922 in Canada. He earned

his B.A. at the University of Toronto in 1945, followed by an M.A. at the University of Chicago

in 1949, and a Ph. D. at the same institution in 1953. He held a number of professorships from

1952 until his death on November 19, 1982 in Philadelphia, PA. He also served as president of

the American Sociological Association (ASA) from 1981-82. Goffman was the author of 11

books during the course of his lifetime, and another book, The Goffman Reader, was published
1
This paper was originally written for the same course as the previous paper on Georg Simmel.

35
posthumously in 1997. He also contributed articles to the periodicals Psychiatry and the

American Journal of Sociology.2 According to B. Diane Blackwood, Goffman’s first book, The

Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, published in 1959, is available in ten languages and has

been in print since its original release.3

The two works that I have chosen to analyze for my treatment of Goffman are Bases of

Fun and Performances. As I previously mentioned, Goffman was a product of the Symbolic-

Interactionist school of thought, so before we proceed to discuss these works of his, a definition

of this term is in order. The term was originally coined by Herbert Blumer (1900-1987), who

served as the 46th President of the ASA in 1955.4 His definition of the term is as follows:

Symbolic Interactionism rests on three primary premises. First, human beings act
towards things on the basis of the meanings those things have for them, second that such
meanings arise out of the interaction of the individual with others, and third, that an
interpretive process is used by the person in each instance in which he must deal with
things in his environment.5

Blumer was influenced by both George Herbert Mead and John Dewey.6 Mead (1863-1931) was

an American philosopher, psychologist, and sociologist. He lived during the period of modern

sociology’s coming into existence, so, like the other founders of what we call modern social

science, he was not originally sociologically trained. John Dewey, an American philosopher

renowned for founding the philosophical school of thought known as Pragmatism (of which

Mead also played a role), was a friend of Mead’s, and for a while, a colleague of his at the

University of Chicago.7

2
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/goffmanbio.html.
3
http://www.blackwood.org/Erving.htm.
4
http://www.asanet.org/governance/blumer.html.
5
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/blumer.htm.
6
http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Papers/Ap.
7
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/mead.htm.

36
 Now that we have provided a definition of the term Symbolic-Interactionism, indeed, its

original definition from its original source, and have traced its heritage back through its

intellectual predecessors, we may now proceed to discuss the first work of Goffman’s that I

would like to address, Bases of Fun. In this work, Goffman takes an in-depth look into games

and how even though games are meant to be fun and take the players of them “outside” of

reality, they do nonetheless come to influence how people act and interact “in” reality, in

everyday life. What the work essentially comes down to is social psychology, which is inherent

in micro sociology and a staple of Symbolic-Interactionist thought. The behaviors and actions

taken by a small few (the players in games) toward each other in games can come to have an

effect on the larger world. But as Goffman also points out with the following passage, what

happens on the “outside,” that is, the larger world, can also come to have an effect in the world

of games:

Another possibility is that games give the players an opportunity to exhibit attributes
valued in the wider social world, such as dexterity, strength, knowledge, intelligence,
courage, and self-control. Externally relevant attributes thus obtain official expression
within the milieu of an encounter. These attributes could even be earned within the
encounter; to be claimed later outside it.8

In Performances, Goffman uses the stage as a metaphor to demonstrate how individuals

behave and act in the public social world and how they do so privately. For example, he

discusses how actors in the theater must assume roles for purposes of a performance. These

actors must “get into” their roles; adopt them as if it were reality. So, applying this metaphor of

the theatrical stage and its actors to reality, Goffman asserts that individuals adopt roles in public

that are not truly representative of whom they really are. It is as if each one of us are actors and

within the confines of our homes (and elsewhere in private, not necessarily just our homes) rests

8
Peter Kivisto (ed.), Social Theory: Roots and Branches, (Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing
Company, 2000), 240.

37
our reality. However, when we enter into the larger world, that is, enter the public sphere, the

world is a stage to us, and our script is comprised of the generally accepted social norms that are

expected of us when we are on this stage, in the public sphere.

Besides this applying to only social norms however, Goffman also brings into the

discussion the jobs that we hold in the world, asserting that they too, are roles that we must play.

For example, let us take a medical doctor. This individual is more than a doctor. S/he is a human

being, complete with emotions, other talents and interests, family, friends, and so forth.

However, at the observation of other people in the public domain, this person is only a medical

doctor. Other people do not really take into consideration that this doctor goes home at night and

has a family and social life like anyone else. So as we can see by this example, this individual

plays the role of a doctor on the stage of the larger world, and only becomes the real, complete

person that s/he is when not assuming this role.

An interesting observation to point out here is that in the work, Goffman traces the roots

of the word person back to its original meaning, mask. He refers the reader to Robert Ezra Park’s

statement concerning this matter in his book (Race and Culture, Glencoe, IL: The Free Press,

1950, p. 249):

It is probably no mere historical accident that the word person, in its first meaning, is a
mask. It is rather a recognition of the fact that everyone is always and everywhere, more
or less consciously, playing a role…It is in these roles that we know each other; it is in
these roles that we know ourselves.9

9
Peter Kivisto (ed.), Social Theory: Roots and Branches, Second Edition, (Los Angeles:
Roxbury Publishing Company, 2003), 249.
10
Ibid.

38
As Goffman also points out, again from Park, “We come into the world as individuals, achieve

character, and become persons.”10 These statements speak with a profound, insightful authority.

They tell of that most startling reality that cannot be truer: that we enter the world as unique

individuals, but it is not too long after our entrance onto the world stage that we are forced to

take up our characters and the script that goes along with them, the lines of that script telling the

story of our jobs in the public sphere and the social norms that are expected of each of us. We

each take up our masks, shrouding our own uniqueness, our own identity.

Relating the work of Erving Goffman to my earlier research on Georg Simmel, Simmel too, was

sincerely concerned with the correlation between the individual and the much larger world. As I

stated previously, it comes down to social psychology, that is, how the forces of the larger world

affect the individual and vice-versa. Both Goffman and Simmel take the discipline of sociology

and dismantle it down to its most basic roots, that is, down to the micro level. I confess that

during the course of my course work, I was never overly interested in micro level analysis. I

dismissed it as psychology and hence, something far different to that of sociology. However,

after encountering Goffman, Simmel, Mead, and others, and reflecting on the matter, it has

become apparent now that micro level social psychology is just as important as macro level

analyses of whole economies, cities, countries, ethnic groups, and so on. It is just as important, if

not even more so, because society cannot exist without that most basic component, the

individual. Hence, if we do not break down society to its most basic element, that of the

individual, how then can we understand the larger picture, the whole of society? It would be

impossible to do so.

39
40
 Exploring the Issue of Censorship

February 20021

Many people argue that a strong correlation exists between media violence and societal

violence. They feel that repeated exposure to media violence is causing unnecessary fear in

people. The fear created by the media causes people to resort more and more to staying inside

their homes because the violence presented on televisions and in movie houses reflects the world

as bitter and gloomy. One issue that I am perplexed by, furthering the need to look into it more,

concerns the censoring of inappropriate material on television and in movies. I am not certain as

to where I stand on the issue, as both pros and cons exist. If we as a nation were to adopt

censorship of the media though, we must ask the question, “How far can we go in censoring the

media before civil liberties are being violated?” People will protest because some actually enjoy

the violence and sexual content that has saturated our television and movie screens. It is,

however, important to explore both the pros and cons of media censorship, as it is a valid topic to

discuss, given our current situation with media violence.

1
This paper was originally written for an English composition course during the author’s
freshman year. It is presented here in its original form, and hence, as with the paper “The
American Elite,” the original format used for citing is MLA style. For the assignment, students
were purposely instructed not to take a definite stand on the topic, that being censorship. Rather,
they were instructed to “wrestle” with the problem, to evenly address both the pros and cons.

41
 According to an online source, “Facts About Media Violence and Effects on the

American Family,” “Children spend more time learning about life through media than in any

other manner. The average child spends approximately 28 hours a week watching television,

which is twice as much time as they spend in school.” Even more startling is that “The average

American child will witness over 200,000 acts of violence on television including 16,000

murders before age 18.” These statistics alone are frightening. To think that the television has

gained such a powerful influence over society is amazing. I am stunned! Just about every

American home now has at least one television set. Is it by coincidence then that murder, rape,

and other crimes have increased greatly over the years since television entered the scene 50 years

ago? A correlation must exist between media violence and societal violence because crime

before the invention of television was barely noticeable. Furthermore, since the early days of

television, the overall crime rate has risen steadily to unbelievable levels.

Media violence is said to increase aggression. To sum up a couple of cases of

aggression in Sissela Bok’s Mayhem, a French woman sued the head of a state television channel

because her son was injured after copying a recipe for a bomb that he viewed on the American

show MacGyver (83). Also, novelist John Grisham complained about the movie Natural Born

Killers, after a friend of his was killed in a spree by a teenage couple that viewed the movie

numerous times before launching the spree (83). Another more identifiable case is World

Wrestling Federation (WWF) events on television. Children find themselves seriously injured all

the time because they copy moves that the wrestlers perform on television. In one sad instance, a

child was killed when her father imitated a wrestling move! I know two high school seniors that

love WWF and they perform wrestling moves on each other. I have witnessed them many times

getting hurt by what they do. I was surprised that high school seniors copy these acts but what

42
was really mind-boggling was to learn about this father, who was a grown man and should have

known better. High school students, even though they are older, are still pretty young and

therefore, may be entitled to get away with some things. An adult man however, should know

better, especially when it comes to a small and fragile child. The examples cited support the

premise that media violence causes aggression. Children are more susceptible to thinking that

what they view on television is acceptable behavior. “If the guys on television do it, so can I.”

Moreover, they assume that even adults cannot comprehend reality from entertainment.

In addition to these supporting facts, according to the online version of Media Focus: The

Centre For Literacy, a British expert with the Institute of Education, David Buckingham,

advocates for censorship. He cites the James Bulger case, in which the said named murdered a

young child after viewing the movie Child’s Play III. Buckingham states, “This, nevertheless, led

to calls for censorship in Britain, and in 1994, legislation was passed to counteract ‘video

nasties’ there.”

The above statistics and examples indicate that censorship may help to reduce such cases

of violence. I feel that the current media seems to present a blueprint on how to cause violence

and fear in society. The empirical data is rich and overflowing. I was amazed to read some of

these examples, for I was never so aware as to how much of an impact television and movies can

have on some people. As a result of the media constantly bringing up and over-exaggerating

anthrax scares, there will be those who will copy the ideas presented. Referring specifically to

the September 11 attacks, the repeated showing of the two planes crashing into the World Trade

Center urged a youth in Florida to crash his small propeller plane into a building, killing himself

in the process. September 11 was a tragic day. Many innocent people lost their lives as the day

unfolded. The media, instead of easing the coverage out of respect and decency, had a field day.

43
The repeated showing of the two planes crashing into the World Trade Center was uncalled for.

It is not entertaining to see that image over and over again, and as I had just stated, it led to a

copycat crash in Florida.

On the other hand, how far can we go before we begin to violate civil liberties? Though

many think that censorship is needed, others will argue that they should be able to hear and view

anything they wish. Opponents of censorship often cite the First Amendment, saying that the

issue falls under freedom of speech. This, however, is a weak argument. In the Constitution, it

states that we all have freedom of speech. In practice though, we know that this is not true. All of

us (or most of us anyway) follow an unwritten moral code that teaches us that we cannot just say

anything we wish. For instance, I won’t walk up to a person and ridicule his/her racial or ethnic

background for fun. It’s wrong and immoral. In return, I do not expect that kind of treatment to

befall on myself. A person cannot walk up to another and sexually harass that person. So, in

many ways, we already have forms of censorship. Why then not go all the way and censor

television and movies, which is where most violence and aggression in society seems to stem

from?

I then wanted to get off of the subject of the First amendment and focus on evidence that

the media does not influence crime. Regardless of whether the First Amendment is valid or not

in this sort of question, I must ask, is there evidence that suggests that the media does not harm

society? According to Free Expression Network, in an article entitled “An Appeal to Reason,”

the answer is yes: “While there is certainly much to criticize in the media, this appeal (referring

to the call to censorship) is likely to do more harm than good…There is no evidence that banning

violence in the media will do anything to deter crime.” Among the arguments against censorship

44
found in this source is that the crime rate is currently the lowest in decades and if censorship

ends up not deterring crime, it will certainly limit artistic freedom.

Censorship seems to provide the answers necessary to improve society. However, what if

more and more power accumulated in the hands of the government and the situation turns into a

police state of sorts? There must be a clear equilibrium laid out that would balance the right

amount of the government’s power to censor and civil liberties. After researching this topic, I am

still uncertain. I do believe that children and adults alike are exposed to content on the television

set and the movie screen that clouds judgment, and distorts one’s ability to decipher between

reality and fiction. On the other hand, I am not sure as to how much power the government

should be granted. If television and movies come under censorship, clearly the door has now

been opened for possible censoring of such things as intellectual property, books, plays, etc.

Nonetheless, I feel that the issue of censorship is an interesting topic and should be explored

further. It opens the door to some very rich insight as to how constant exposure to our media may

affect us. The topic causes us to think deeply about society’s problems and possible solutions as

to how those problems may be corrected or improved for the better.

45
46
 Sex: Is it Really All Men Seek?

September 20041

A good female friend told me this past summer that the only thing that men desire is sex.

I was in a state of shock, for I am, and apparently one of the last in a dying breed, a believer in

the concept of true love. I wish to now take a moment to counter my friend’s claim.

It is true that some men (and some women as well) are just looking for sexual pleasure,

and they do not care the number of partners by which this is achieved. Unfortunately, this

minority has come to overshadow the majority of those who seek meaningful, dedicated,

monogamous relationships.

If it be true that the only objective that men seek is sex, then I must ask my friend and the

larger readership: Why then do we find the majority of men seeking a relationship with only one

woman? For if it be true that the only thing that men seek is sexual gratification, then we may

say with confidence that we would find all men frequenting a house of prostitution. We may say

with confidence that monogamous relationships do not exist. But we know both to be untrue.
1
Written in September 2004, this brief reflection originally appeared in The Think Tank, the
monthly newsletter of the Cardinal Stritch University Philosophy Club, September 2004.

47
 For a man to seek a relationship with one woman (and vice-versa), there must be

something else present besides a sexual attraction (i.e. emotional/spiritual bond, personality,

etc.), for as I previously stated, if it were a matter of pure sexual desire, then men would not limit

the number of women to just one, when they could leave themselves “open” or “available” to all

the women they want. So, by this simple observation, we can state with certainty that sex is not

all that men seek. The same observation applies to women as well.

As I indicated previously, the sexually over-charged minority of both genders has come

to overshadow the majority of those who seek meaningful, loving relationships with one

significant other. And it is because of this fact that we observe a “war” taking place between the

two genders in which both sides are in a constant state of verbally belittling the other.

My Overall Philosophy of History1

1
The following work is a reflection adapted from “Chapter VI: Conclusion” of the author’s
History senior seminar paper. The course was taken from August-December 2003.

48
 If I were to describe my overall philosophy of history, it would be this: that history is

linear in nature. Rather than being cyclical, that is to say, repetitive, as some may argue, I am

convinced that history is a work of ongoing progress. It is a continuing line. Hence, my

philosophy of history expresses much hope in the future of humanity, much like that of Gene

Roddenberry, the creator of the 1960’s television series Star Trek, which later gave way to a

number of films and spin-off television shows.

Gene Roddenberry envisioned a world in which humanity would one day set aside its

differences and work together. In the twenty-third, and later the twenty-fourth centuries, which

the Star Trek television shows and films take place, Earth is an international community. The

national barriers that we know today do not exist. All the world’s peoples are at peace with one

another. Humanity, science, and progress prevail. Money does not exist. Everyone in the world

works for the common good. Practices that seem acceptable today, such as capital punishment,

are seen as barbarous, and are outlawed everywhere. Thanks to scientific progress and education,

49
the world knows the reasons that underlie criminal behavior. Therefore, instead of imprisoning

criminals and letting them waste away, they can be effectively treated. Now, I am not sure that

all of these things are totally achievable. It is difficult, indeed very difficult, to imagine a world

without national boundaries, or without money. I do believe however, that most of

Roddenberry’s vision, if not all, can be achieved as time goes on.

One of the philosophers whom I had the pleasure of studying throughout this course, is

the Frenchman August Comte (1798-1857). I have found that Comte’s philosophy of history,

known as Positivism, closely reflects that of Roddenberry’s philosophy, and hence mine as well.

Comte believed that society would pass through three stages. He called the first stage the

theological state, in which individuals and society as a whole, attempt to answer what are known

as the “big” questions (e.g. “Why am I (or we) here?” “What is the meaning to my (or our)

existence?” etc.) by attributing the answers to a god or gods. The second stage, known as the

metaphysical state, is seen as a transition stage between the first and third stages. In this stage,

the god or gods are replaced with more abstract concepts. Scientific enlightenment and an end to

all superstition mark the final stage, the positive state. Individuals, and of course, society as a

whole, rather than attempting to explain the origins of certain phenomena (like the universe for

example), which can never be fully answered, instead redirect their focus to understanding the

phenomena and how it works.

So, in closing, I place much hope in the future of humanity. I am convinced that as time

goes on, and as we learn more about ourselves and our surrounding universe, the future will look

much brighter.

50
 On the Correlation Between Personal/Social Psychology and the Health of Money Economy

April 20051

1
This paper was originally written for an Intro to Psychology course.

51
 I

Introduction to the Problematic

Adam Smith (1723-90), prominent Scottish philosopher and economist, in his 1776 book

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (The Wealth of Nations by its

shorter name), described the economy as being dictated by an “invisible hand.” He argued that

we cannot control this “invisible hand” that steers the economy, that we must learn to ride out the

natural economic cycles as it were, and that if bad times should ever prevail in the life of the

economy, the natural laws that govern it shall over time regulate the problem.

Let us suppose though that we as individuals and as a society do in fact possess the power

necessary to control the “invisible hand” of the capitalist economy; that the economic forces are

not as mighty as previously thought. I am convinced that this is the case, that indeed, our

psychology, both on the individual and the societal level, does in fact steer the economy, as

opposed to the abstract force proposed by Smith. I am not though, totally discrediting Smith.

Indeed, he is a genius in the area of economic thought.

52
 Besides this theory residing in the realm of psychology however, it will also reside in the

philosophical and sociological spheres as well, for this is, in the final analysis, though in fact

entailing the individual, a macro issue entailing the whole of society, specifically American

society. I will begin by analyzing the shortcomings of the traditional philosophy of individualism

that has become a staple in American life; I am specifically concerned, of course, as to how this

philosophy shapes modern economic life. I will next explain how a spirit of nationalism, as it

relates to economics, is needed, and why it is healthy. Besides looking at nationalism however,

the notion of internationalism and its importance will be discussed as well. I will proceed to

discuss the psychological fear that we possess, both as individuals and as a society, that prevents

us from enjoying a continuously healthy economy. Finally, I will close by briefly summarizing

the main points of the work and offer solutions to rectify the problem.

II

The American Philosophy of Individualism: Rewards and Consequences

The United States was founded on the principles of individualism; that the individual is

supreme and that, therefore, has certain inalienable rights. With these rights, the individual can

and will achieve great things in life through honest, hard work. The rewards of embracing this

philosophy are clear: If we as individuals strive to work hard and live in moderation, we have the

potential to build a comfortable life. However, many things have changed in society, and

particularly the economy, since the nation was founded. The economy in the country’s infancy

was primarily rural based in which trade was conducted, for the most part, with immediate

neighbors.

As the country approached the Civil War, however, as sociologist C. Wright Mills points

out in his 1959 book The Power Elite, the economy began to really take off, moving both out of

53
the local town square and away from individual craftsmanship, and expanding nationally through

the invention of factories and the creation of roads and railways. Today, the economy has

become even more intricate and delicate, as it has now expanded globally. Hence, what may

happen economically in New York, London, Rome, Tokyo, or even closer to the American

heartland, like Wisconsin, may have an impact not only where the event happened (like a factory

closing for instance), but also elsewhere throughout the country or even the world. Hence, we

must adapt this traditional American philosophy, which is that of strict individualism, to include

collectivism, for what happens in rural Maine could affect jobs, commodities prices, etc.,

throughout the United States. In other words, besides looking out for our own economic success,

we must also take into account the financial health of other entities, such as other individuals,

companies, whole governments, etc.

III

The Need for a Healthy Dose of Nationalism and Internationalism

Along with adapting the traditional American philosophy of individualism to include

collectivism when it concerns matters of economics, should flow a spirit of nationalism, which in

this case, is very beneficial, despite the negative undertones that are often connected with the

term. When we adapt this philosophy, we will also be adapting our individual psychologies. We

will begin to see that even the slightest economic transaction plays a significant role in the health

of a much larger economic system, and we will continue to do our part as individuals to keep that

system strong; for by thinking and working collectively, we will also achieve great results

individually. With that nationalism however, should also flow a spirit of internationalism as well.

This is primarily by default however, the result of a natural evolution over time by which the

economy comes to be so intricately laid out on a global scale, that we must take the remaining

54
world into account as well. As is previously mentioned, economic factors in other parts of the

world can affect our country and/or other parts of the world now.

IV

The Psychological Fear Preventing a Continuously Healthy Economy

With the advent of the modern economy, have come vast technologies in the area of

communications. We have television, the Internet, Instant Messenger, cellular phones, as well as

older tools of communication like newspapers and radio. By having all of these means of instant

communication, comes the risk of a devastating economic downslide. For example, let us

suppose that an economic analyst appears on radio or television, and states that s/he foresees a

terrible downward forecast in the stock market. Now, whether or not his/her analysis would have

proven true in the end is not the question. His/her message has already reached millions of

people, and as a result, these millions of people are very likely to begin acting immediately on

that message. If people own stock, they are likely to sell as soon as they are able. For those who

do not own stock, not going out and spending shall be their contribution to spreading this fear.

Even if the analyst’s predictions would have proven wrong, we can now never know for sure, for

his/her message has already reached the millions of people who keep the economy going strong,

and hence may have altered an otherwise stable, healthy course, intentionally or not.

None of this is to say that modern communications is unworthy of existence. However,

because of the vast network of communications, one must be careful with such a message, for it

reaches millions of people instantly, and by the time a positive message comes a long in order to

try to reverse the negative outcomes of the previous message, severe damage has already taken

place. This proved true during the Great Depression era. Despite top ranking government

55
officials and economic advisors encouraging people not to panic, irreversible damage had

already taken place, and the result was over a decade of severe economic struggle.

Conclusions

So far, I have offered a brief criticism of the philosophy of individualism, calling for it to

be adapted to fit the economic situation of the modern world by including collectivism. As a

result of this, a sense of nationalism, as well as internationalism, should stem from this

adaptation. Hence, as the result of all of these factors put together, our individual psychologies

will change as well when it comes to looking at the much larger economic system. Now, all of

this may seem far too abstract for the common layperson not versed in philosophy, psychology,

sociology, or economics, so it is my wish here to explain all of this in much more understandable

terms.

We as individuals have a stake in the much larger economy, and as a result of that, we

must not only look out for our own financial futures, but the health of the entire economy.

Hence, despite mixed or negative economic forecasts being broadcasted on television and/or

radio, or printed in the newspapers, we as individuals must continue, without fear, to spend. We

must continue to think positively when it comes to economics, and by doing this, we can insure a

continuously stable and healthy economy.

Adam Smith, who proposed the idea of the abstract “invisible hand” that determines

economic outcomes, while a great theory, did not take into account individual psychology. This

is probably due to the fact that the modern science of psychology was not yet in existence. In any

case, however, I am arguing against Smith’s notion that forces that we cannot control govern the

economy. The power lies within our very minds. If we begin embracing positive psychology as

56
individuals, collectively, we can put an end to the wide spread hysteria that led to the Great

Depression and all of the slightly less severe recessions that have plagued the economy in the last

few decades.

As I stated previously, we must begin to look at the larger picture. We must see that

every purchase that we make, however miniscule the transaction, whether it be buying stock,

purchasing tools, renting a movie, buying clothes, going out for dinner, etc., keeps current jobs

strong and may even help to create more jobs. We must begin to realize that we are a part of

something larger.

Works Cited

“An Appeal to Reason.” http://www.freeexpression.org/reason.htm.

Bok, Sissela. Mayhem. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1998.

“Facts About Media Violence and Effects on the American Family.”

http://www.babybag.com/articles/amaviol.htm.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/goffmanbio.html.

http://www.asanet.org/governance/blumer.html.

http://www.blackwood.org/Erving.htm.

http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Papers/Ap.

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/blumer.htm.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/mead.htm.

Kivisto, Peter (ed.). Social Theory: Roots and Branches. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing
Company, 2000.

57
Kivisto, Peter (ed.). Social Theory: Roots and Branches, Second Edition. Los Angeles: Roxbury
Publishing Company, 2003.

Levine, Donald N. (ed.). Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Literature Resource Center—Author Resource Pages. http://0-

galenet.galegroup.com.topcat.switchinc.org/servlet/LitRC?vrsn=3&OP=contains…

“Media and Violence: David Buckingham.”

http://www.nald.ca/province/que/litcent/media2/media3.htm.

Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford Press, 1956.

Moore, Michael. Stupid White Men. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.

Pampel, Fred C. Sociological Lives and Ideas: An Introduction to the Classical Theorists. New
York: Worth Publishers, 2000.

Simmel, Georg. “Conflict.” 1908.

Simmel, Georg. “How is Society Possible?” American Journal of Sociology, 1910-11, vol. 16.

Simmel, Georg. The Metropolis and Mental Life. 1903.

Simmel, Georg. The Stranger. 1908.

Tihanov, Galin. “Georg Simmel and Avant-Garde Sociology” (Book Review). The Journal of
European Studies, December 2002 v32 i4 p417(2).

Wolff, Kurt H. (ed.). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press, 1950.

58
59