For my final paper, I will be writing about the Dickinson Health Center, how it began, and how it has evolved into what it is today. It began in 1944 as the “Fink House”, which was purchased as a residence and turned into an infirmary.The Health center was unofficially named the Fink House after the long time director Oneta Fink. A few years later, the house was split into two sections, one for faculty residences, and the other as the infirmary. It was then moved into Drayer Hall, which at the time was an all women’s dormitory. It was stocked and able to respond to any students need, to include flu outbreaks which had broken out. As time progressed and the college continued to develop, I was very curious as to how the birth control and contraception were viewed, used, and distributed by the college to their students. Officially, in 1987 condoms were given out free of charge to both male and female students. In 2009, an article was published in the school paper, The Dickinsonian, which discussed the other types of contraceptives that would be available for students in the Health Center. In my opinion, this topic is very important and interesting to discuss because the Health Center is a place where students can go and discuss anything pertinent without their parents ever having knowledge if the student chooses. Students are actually required to sign a form to allow the Health Center to share information with parents. To see the progression and the development of the Health Center and the easy accessibility for students to get medicines, among other types of care, can make life much easier for college students.
Monthly Archives: March 2013
Russia and Modern Conflicts
I found an interesting article on CNN’s website concerning Russia and it’s involvement with the conflict between North Korea and the modern world. The basic premise of the article (here is the link http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/07/to-tackle-north-korea-focus-on-russia-and-china/?iref=allsearch ) is that neighboring countries should take an interest in preventing North Korea from becoming a nuclear power. However, the article states that the largest concern (or necessary point of change) is the enabling behavior of Russia and China. Essentially, the author believes that we need a little team work.
This seems like a daunting task. We have spent very little time in class discussing Russia in the context of current political events, but if we step back and examine the social culture of the country in the context of the 20th century, Russia has been too hard headed to be a team player. Russia’s idea of unification and strengthening itself internally has been something that has kept it cut off from the rest of the world in many ways. Even the revolutionary art stemmed from the concept that Russia has already created enough art on it’s own and that there is no need for foreign influence.
I would be curious to further observe points in history when Russia opted out of “joining others.” Is this one of Russia’s biggest flaws?
Thinking about time….
Since reading E.P Thompson’s piece and discussing it in class today, along with the recent academic crunch, I have been feeling the pressure of time and to get things done. For me, time seems to be an artificial construct, something outside my person controlling me in a way that I want to resist, defend against, act outside of, but inevitably have to conform to its powerful tick tick ticking, like a beat to a metronome. We discussed how time changed, how humans conception of time changed with the industrial revolution and it became associated with a heightened sense of productivity and money. People internalized time, changing their behavior and their lifestyles. It has become so embedded in our beings, it is hard to imagine living outside of it, if that is even possible. The pressure to be always doing something with your time is more acute in the United States, at least how I see it. My experiences in Costa Rica, Argentina, Mexico and Cuba have offered me another perspective towards time. When you set a time to meet someone, often people show up anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour later! In Costa Rica, we joked, there was “Tico time” – another perception of time. People show up “late” or aren’t so worried about being their “on time”. People enjoy coffee or mate in Argentina, converse for hours on end and are not rushed like Americans, grabbing starbucks on their way to the next thing.
Personally, I enjoy the more relaxed nature of these Latin American cultures and not the rushed, manic rat race that takes over our lives. I think there is something important to be said about taking time to reflect about our lives, relationships, world problems, philosophical problems, or just to shoot the shit. Even faff about, read the paper over a cup of tea. In the end, I think it boils down to how we perceive time individually. Obviously, society’s perception of time as a whole effects us, how advertisements and structures such as school and other external factors shapes our lives. However, one can escape this tick ticking of the dictator clock- if not escape it, then not be dominated by it, or controlled by it. Anyways, food for thought.
I was talking with my friend, and he sent me this opinion article, relevant to our discussion. Take a look: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/on-modern-time/
Reflections on Reading
I want to start with the Past and Present reading on Time. The theme that seems to be running through this class most often is that of relativity. In this article, Thompson is arguing many things, one of which is that even time is relative. He uses the example of a group of people who do not have any notion of the word time, and simply go about their day without it. Thompson also proves that with the development of industrialization, time began to equal money, which lead to the importance of time.
I thought this article was fascinating because in my previous semester spent in England, the biggest difference I noted in cultures was the relationship to time. In England, the streets were crowded with business people all hours of the day, every day of the week. My friends and I joked that no one seemed to work in England. American’s always need to have three things to do, they cannot simply sit and enjoy: this would be considered wasting valuable time. Thompson addresses this by noting how American’s perfected working with time long ago with Henry Ford. Why is it that the English seem so ambivalent to the passing of time (they can sit in a crowded park for hours just sitting or talking), while American’s still rigorously believe that time is money?
While I could not relate to the second article as much as to the first, I did still find it interesting. Holquist makes a point to differentiate between policing and surveillance, two words that I previously assumed meant the same thing. I think the stigma in the United States and Europe is that surveillance, especially by the government, is a horrible thing. In this article, however, Holquist argues that in Soviet and pre-Soviet Russia, the point of surveillance was not to monitor, but rather to figure out the moods of their citizens, as well as to help shape their citizens into better people. Holquist also argues that information moved in two separate ways in Russia. He says not only did information move from the people to the government, but also the other way around. I think this is an interesting opinion and one that we do not get usually in America.
Holquist’s final point that he makes in this article is that the use of mass surveillance really blossomed in the Second World War for many reasons. Holquist says one of the main reasons was because governments (not just Russia’s) wanted to see how their soldiers on the front lines were feeling about the war and in general. This mass surveillance shifted after the war, however, and moved from not just soldiers but to every citizen in the country as far as Russia is concerned. This second article left me with many questions, but they are all due in part to my lack of knowledge in Russian history. I was impressed with both author’s obvious enthusiasm for their topics, and found new, interesting topics discussed in both.
Surveillance in Russia
Holquist takes his argument and focuses on USSR and their plans to monitor the mood in Russia. His organization was very solid, keeping the flow and had breaks in the different thoughts, but how he views his sources presents a little concern for me. I personally did not notice any vetting of the sources because in Mother Russia (like anywhere else), there is a tendency to either emphasis or ignore particular aspects of what was going on. For example, there are issues of validity in countries such as Russia where there is censorship and even self-censorship on the management (and surveillance) levels.
Holquist continues on to revisit that idea of Imperial Russia compared to the other powers during World War I. In my World War I class with Professor Sweeney, we discussed ideas such as these, especially regarding communication home. For example, the troops would often be issued form letters to send home just to let their parents know they were alive, which they would sign and send; which in turn, alleviated some of the burden on the censors. The French, on the other side, used imported laborers to help keep their factories in production. These laborers would send letters home describing their working conditions in some of the most risky jobs and the chance that the stories of people being sent to the front (for one reason or another). It wasn’t until they tried to draft 25,000 Algerians to work in France that they realized the letters being sent home by the workers needed censored or they would never find enough workers in the colonies volunteering to come work in France. As a whole, the idea of censorship seems to be both beneficial (for the controlling state) but at the same time, a waste of resources and manpower because it is obvious when citizens become unhappy with the state, just like they did with the Revolution of 1905 and again in the Russian Revolution.
How is time establish
How was time established? Who was the one who created the idea of tracking time on a watch? This questions are raised through E. P. Thompson’s article, Time, Work-Disciple, and Industrial Capitalism. Thompson shows the development of time and how it changed through the centuries. I found this article very interesting because it shows the different ways people tracked time. In the early centuries, time was never recorded with a specific number, instead it was recorded by a specific phrase depending on the culture that was present. People arrived on time through estimated times.
Thompson goes further in explaining how there are different types of time. One of the types discussed was task-oriented time. This is how the recording of time started. But it is interesting because task-oriented time in some cultures is still present. Task-oriented time actually is present in some ways in the our culture now. Task-oriented time is shown with parenting. Stay-at-home parents deal with this time because they run on the time of their children as well as their own time. Their children go to school, have appointments, and do extracurricular activities. The children must depend on the time of their parents, therefore their parents must be on the time of their children.
Evolution of the concepts of time and surveillance
In Information Is the Alpha and Omega of Our Work, Peter Holquist details the evolution and purpose of the Soviet surveillance systems. Holquist argues the Soviet surveillance systems were not solely a Soviet phenomenon and were not restricted to the Bolshevik era of power. Instead Holquist claims the use of surveillance was a European concept and had existed prior to the Bolsheviks, with World War One as a catalyst. Surveillance differed from policing in that it’s goal was to mold, “society’s human material into a more emancipated, conscious, and superior individual”(Holquist, 417). Through surveillance the states could, “attempt to gather information on popular moods and the measures intended to transform them”(Holquist, 418). Holquist argues surveillance was directly related to the transition from an imperial state concerned more with ruling territory, to a governmental state which became more concerned with the overall mood and thoughts of the population it ruled over. This is not to say the governmental state cared about the feelings and problems of it’s people on human level, but as Holquist mentions the state was interested due to a desire to protect it’s own lifespan.
Holquist argues surveillance varied within Russia in different time periods and contrasts Imperial Russia in 1913 with Soviet Russia in 1920. Imperial Russia did have surveillance agencies, such as the “Black Offices”, but the state was at that time more concerned with potential revolutionaries at the time than the Russian population as a whole. Yet after the fall of the Tsar and rise of the Soviet regime, the focus of surveillance switched to include revolutionaries and the population as a whole. This was due to the increased focus on creating a “better, purer society”(Holquist, 417) as well as a desire to protect the regime. It was interesting to see throughout the article how Holquist describes the evolution of surveillance and the variance within time periods, countries, and the European continent as a whole.
In Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism Thompson analyzes the evolution of the concept of time in relation to industry, modernization, and societal values. Thompson argues one of the ways the importance of time was emphasized was through pre-existing Puritan values. These values had already stressed a strong work ethic and a importance placed on time in the context of religion and an approaching judgment day. Thompson argues the insistence imposed by religion on the working individual switched to an insistence based on making money and a sense of time in relation to hours in place of a natural cycle. Relating to the evolution of the modern concept of time in relation to society, Thompson mentioned clocks began appearing in public places during the 14th century but their upkeep and ringing was funded through the donations of local residents. The donations indicate that the modern concept and importance of time was not yet established in these communities and most were functioning with natural time. It was interesting that in the 18th century the possession of a device which could tell time, such as a pocketwatch or grandfather clock, indicated a higher social status or rising social status amongst the lower classes.
An Anniversary
John Belushi died today in 1982. Joseph Stalin died today in 1953. Both of these people left a great impact on society and the world, and their contributions are significant, but I wouldn’t recommend emulating either of them. However, what often comes with anniversaries is nostalgia, which particularly seems to be the case with Comrade Stalin, and nostalgia for something can be easily separated from its original meaning.
When reading about the ceremony that the Russian Communist Party held today at the Kremlin wall the article said that there were about 300 people, mostly pensioners, that paid their respects. Based on recent polling that revealed that more than a third of Russians view Stalin positively, this seemed small, but much of this support is probably not from members of the Communist Party. The KPRF only received 17% of the vote in the last presidential election (I am taking that number at face value, if only for this exercise), meaning that many of Stalin’s admirers are coming from somewhere else. This seems to be a case of nostalgia being used for selective reasons.
In Stalin’s case, Russia seems to have taken a nationalistic approach to using his nostalgia, at a time when Russia is becoming more extremely nationalistic in general. The residents of Volgograd recently voted to refer to their city as Stalingrad on patriotic military holidays celebrating WWII, in order to remember the great sacrifice that Russia overcame to win the war. The Great Patriotic War, as it is referred to by Russians, is designated as such because of the enormous casualties (Russsia lost more than 10% of it population due to military and civilian deaths). For this reason Stalin, despite the fact that he was personally responsible for the deaths several million people, can be remembered for his military leadership instead. It is probably not a good sign that the current regime is supporting this refocus of history.
On an unrelated tangent, I think that John Belushi and General Radlov in the Barber of Siberia were probably equals in every sense.
Alpha Omega Work Disciple
In Holquist’s article, he discusses the different needs and uses of surveillance during the Cold War and the entrance of World War 1. The uses of surveillance under the Imperial regime and the Soviet Regime was very different. It was noted that every month, officials would have to turn in reports that would show how the citizens were feeling in terms of thier moods. A statement was made “the crucial factor was not the ‘popularity’ of the system”…”These systems were concerned isntead with sculpting and “gardening” a better society while simultaneously molding societies human material into a more emancipated, conscious and superior individual– the “new man”” (Holquist. pg 417) This statement goes to show that throughout the wars, the use of surveillance was to change the people.
Thompson’s article about time and work-discipline is much different because it does not compare two different groups of people separated in time, but rather an abstract idea. He describes time as relative to the group of the people being discussed. An example is given “nature demands that the grain be harvested before the thunderstorms set in…sheep must be attended at lambing time” (Thompson pg 60). This use of nature and farming vernacular is relative to the people it describes. The development of the clock, from grandfather clocks to pocket watches are described as a slow process in which time, which was once different and relatvie to each group, to become one central time that everyone abides by, regardless of your occupation. As it stands today, clocks are linked to satellites so that everyone in your time zone has the same standard time. It seems that in order to study an abstract idea like time, one must have an understanding of where the idea came from, how it was used many years ago, to understand its progression and its future. This article was very interesting to me because coming from a family of farmers, is it is very true that time is relavant to the group it describes.
Reflections on Holquist and Thompson
Until the pendulum was introduced in 1658, time was imprecise, a concept foreign to the 21st century. It varied from town to town and from clock to clock. This drew my attention because in 2013, there is a single correct time, which all watches and clocks aspire to. Even after the invention of the pendulum, the concept of time was almost independent from clock to clock.
The device of a clock has progressively evolved from a simple machine to a status symbol and even a portable investment. Thomas states that the “transition to mature industrial society” (Thompson, 79) from an ignorant non-industrial culture revolves around the use of time, which changes with each generation and each person. From the increased efforts of time conservation and time utilization emerged productivity and efficiency, the cornerstones of capitalism.
Holquist starts his article by declaring his bias towards American society over Soviet society. He discusses how Bolshevik surveillance “shape[d] how people thought they could express themselves—while at the same suggesting to them that their views mattered” (Holquist, 430). If anything, Holquist depicts the spying methods of the Bolsheviks and Soviets positively by defining their purpose as “enlightening the population” (435). American culture, traditionally, would reject this view because this type of surveillance would be seen as an invasion of privacy and a desecration of personal freedoms. Holquist depicts himself as biased against Soviet culture but defends their spying in a way similar to the Soviets themselves.