Monthly Archives: February 2014

The Mongols

Posted on by

This reading focused on a more particular aspect of the Mongol horde and their invasions in Rus. Rather it focused on the belief, by the chroniclers of Rus, of the Mongols being a punishment. As a result of the continuos lack in proper leadership by the princes of Rus, such as fighting amongst each other to control more power as opposed to honoring what they, as well as each other, had, the sight of the Mongol invaders quickly became to be believed as a punishment from God. I found this to be the most interesting aspect of the reading particularly due to the impact in which religion, primarily God, plays on society during this time.

This reading also focused on the affect of the Mongol invasions after having occurred. Particularly the affect the invasions had on the Orthodox Church. With the continuous Mongol invasions the Mongol forces, although having destroyed many of the churches, gained control over religion. As a result of this the Orthodox Church was able to successfully establish themselves as “an independent institution” which ultimately allowed the church to become less restricted and more powerful.

The Division of Labor

Posted on by

Adam Smith’s Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, and gives his descriptions of the things that are responsible for helping to build a nations’ wealth at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The first chapter speaks about the Division of Labor, which Smith states has been the cause of the greatest improvement in the increased productivity of labor. He gives the example of the pin-makers and their ability to increase productivity and output with a division of labor.  Each step in making a pin was performed by a different worker, allowing for a more efficient process and resulting in the creation of many more pins. If there was no division of labor and each man worked independently, they would not be able to produce the same number of pins. Therefore with the introduction of the division, no matter in what arena, there is a proportionable increase in the productive powers of labor. When a man is only responsible for completing one step in a process, his dexterity improves and he can increase the quantity of work he can perform, while saving time in the process. Each individual worker becomes an expert in their particular task, resulting in more work being completed more efficiently.

With an increase in technology and the development of new machines in the Industrial Revolution came the idea of the division of labor. The workers new ability to concentrate on specific tasks led them to become more skilled in that task. This specialization allowed for increased efficiency, a growth in output and increase in trade, leading to greater economic independence for the nation.

 

One Child Policy

Posted on by

Adam Smith claims that human growth will inevitably push the limits of agricultural growth, as humans reproduce at exponential rate and plant life does not. The limits of our agrarian capabilities are somewhat unknown, however, there is current awareness that if the human population does outgrow the available resource pool, the result would be wide spread starvation and death.

            The People’s Republic of China imparted the “One-Child Policy”, or the banning of Chinese families to produce more than one child without extra taxation, in 1979. The One Child Policy prevented an estimated 200 million births, and has greatly alleviated the overstretching of China’s industrial and agricultural resources necessary to accommodate its citizens. Over population and scarcity of resources is usually a byproduct of a society that is undergoing a rapid process of industrialization and urbanization, while simultaneously failing to expand its resource pool—the exponentially increasing population density despite the absence of adequate resources for maintenance. In contrast, less refined hunter-gatherer societies do not run into these issues, as naturally their populations do not grow exponentially in density because they lack the original resources and they must be mobile.

One Child Policy

Posted on by

Adam Smith claims that human growth will inevitably push the limits of agricultural growth, as humans reproduce at exponential rate and plant life does not. The limits of our agrarian capabilities are somewhat unknown, however, there is current awareness that if the human population does outgrow the available resource pool, the result would be wide spread starvation and death.

             The People’s Republic of China imparted the “One-Child Policy”, or the banning of Chinese families to produce more than one child without extra taxation, in 1979. The One Child Policy prevented an estimated 200 million births, and has greatly alleviated the overstretching of China’s industrial and agricultural resources necessary to accommodate its citizens. Over population and scarcity of resources is usually a byproduct of a society that is undergoing a rapid process of industrialization and urbanization, while simultaneously failing to expand its resource pool—the exponentially increasing population density despite the absence of adequate resources for maintenance. In contrast, less refined hunter-gatherer societies do not run into these issues, as naturally their populations do not grow exponentially in density because they lack the original resources and they must be mobile.

 

The Wealth of Nations and the Division of Labor

Posted on by

Adam Smith writes about the division of labor and its essential role in industry and innovation. He uses the example of a pin-maker with little experience, who may by himself manufacture only one pin in a day. There are as many as eighteen distinct steps that go into making a single pin; these are tasks that if all executed by one man take much longer to master and much longer to carry out. If these eighteen tasks are delegated to different pairs of hands however, each pair carrying out only two or three of these eighteen steps, the production of pins will skyrocket. This is also true for any industry. Even the simplest products take many steps and many different processes to manufacture. These individual tasks require varying levels of skill. When labor is divided among many different laborers there is less time wasted sauntering from task to task. A worker may concentrate on one task throughout the work day without switching his attention to another distinct task and having to adapt to that task after performing the previous one.

While it is natural for a person to saunter between tasks and to initially perform at a lower rate when starting a new task, it is also natural to innovate to improve efficiency. Smith uses the example of the boy responsible for opening and shutting alternately the communication between the boiler and the cylinder on the first fire engines. The boy naturally preferred to spend time with his friends over being constantly employed on the fire engine, so he invented a device to replace his job on the engine: he “observed that, by tying a string from the handle of the valve which opened this communication, to another part of the machine, the valve would open and shut without his assistance” thereby allowing him to “divert himself with his play-fellows.” Smith notes that the operators of machines are not the only drivers of innovation; the makers of machines and observers are also major drivers of innovation and improvements in efficiency. There are those whose only occupation is to observe and create improvements to existing machines and processes.

The division of labor in individual industries is an important device for efficiency, but specialization is also essential for innovation and efficiency. Smith points out all the different processes and industries that go into making something as simple as a wool coat: ship-builders, sail-makers, and rope-makers were needed to facilitate the ability to transport goods from place to place; tool-makers made the shears that were used to get the wool from the sheep and the shepherd raised that sheep. There are countless other professions and specialties that go into the seemingly simple process of making a wool coat. This is true for any other manufactured good as well.

The Wealth of Nations and Essay on Population

Posted on by

Chapter 1 of Smith’s famous text argued that specialization is key to economic growth. He explained how making each man a master of his particular trade makes production faster and leads to further innovation; a cycle of rapid growth then ensues. This growth spreads more wealth over more people, narrowing the gap between princes and peasants. Malthus, in his First Essay on Population, debunked Godwin’s argument that a more egalitarian society and economics will end poverty. Malthus mainly argued that population inevitably reaches an equilibrium with subsistence because population naturally tends to increase but subsistence is definite.

These two philosophers’ arguments are more closely related than they seem at face value. Malthus argued that population is limited by what the earth has to offer. Smith proposed a way to make production much more efficient–specialization. Increased specialization, makes production of materials, all of which are either directly or indirectly from the earth, more efficient. Therefore the more efficient production becomes, the more people the rather can support. The only true limitation on the human population is technology, which is forever developing at an increasing rate. Thus population capacity can never be accurately predicted. The factors which we see at limitations to the population capacity now are mainly space, food, water, and clean air. However, what if science brings up the ability to turn all waste from resources into new resources? Then space would become the final limitation. What if we then develop a way to live at higher elevations or beneath the sea? Questions like these seem unreasonable at the present day, but who could have predicted that nuclear energy would possible one thousand years ago?

Are children raised by nations?

Posted on by

My task for class tomorrow is to lead a discussion on the relationship between the “nation” and the child, and so I will begin that discussion in this post. After reading Stearns book “Childhood in World History” I walked away with two major conclusions, and many minor ones.

Although I already suspected this, I concluded that the nation (meaning, for the most part, the government) has an incredible influence on the concept of childhood within its borders. Stearns outlines several shifts in global history that heavily impacted childhood across the globe, and I think that governments were responsible for many of these shifts. Industrialization, for instance, was the reason that in the 19th Century  children began working jobs just like adults, and industrialization was strongly supported by governments.  So too were further technological advancements in mechanization, which resulted in machines displacing children from the work place. And so childhood shifted yet again to emphasize school rather than labor. Governments had a huge role ushering in this new age of childhood that focused on schooling. Japan created a mandatory education system by the turn of the 20th Century. The Japanese government believed that their population would be of no value if it was illiterate, therefore the future wealth of the country depended on the education of children. Governments also sought to control how adults conducted “parenting,” especially because these cultures believe in the innocence of children at birth. The corruption of a child comes from ill-treatment at the hands of adult and bad societal influences.

My second conclusion is this: because of the influence a government has on childhood within a nation, it is only logical that the concept of childhood differs from country to country. In some cases, like amongst Western countries, these differences may be slight, however I am certain they exist. This ties back to readings from last week that highlighted geography as a key determinant of childhood. Each government, backed by cultural traditions, has tried to maintain some aspects of their traditional way of life or their ideological thinking that they believe is important for society to keep, and these cultural nuances are different everywhere. For the Soviet Union, they wanted to stress Marxism in the classrooms and instill a sense of duty towards the collective good, meaning the state. China, Japan and the Soviet Union all, to a certain degree, stressed a sense of loyalty or duty to the state, however in Japan it was more in line with nationalism than with Communist ideology.

The role of the state with regards to the development of childhood should not be overlooked; in fact, I think the answers to many “whys?” and “hows?” can be found by looking towards the nation.

My stern opinion

Posted on by

While reading Stearns’ full work, I couldn’t help but feel the same lack of faith towards delving into ‘history-ing’ children as a discipline, because I again found Stearns’ focus to be more about the impacts adults and society had on children during their respective eras rather than of the childhoods themselves. For example, Stearns spends a good deal of time examining various punishments enacted on children for misbehaving acts. Similar to our discussion last week, studying punishments (frankly) is convenient! They’re convenient because they have been acts enacted by older generations who can easily recall how they punished youngsters.

Stearns also spends a lot of time discussing issues of inheritance, which I understood but also didn’t understand. I felt like (again), delving into issues like inheritance is a fairly ‘convenient’ way to explore the history of childhood, because again, children aren’t known to be responsible for the handing down of inheritance – they simply are on the receiving end – and usually these children make decisions about their respective inheritances when they are significantly older (no longer children). This, again, to me at least is confusing because is Stearns really getting at a history of childhood by examining aspects of childhood that are essentially placed ‘on’ children by adults – which adults then use to examine the histories of childhood that they create. Stearns also focuses on when children, across a plethora of cultures, begin attending educational institutions. Maybe I’m getting carried away here by labeling these sources as ‘convenient’ and accusing these historians on founding their histories on a seemingly pseudo-basis, but employing enrollment statistics to help delve into the history of childhood is yet again using a source formed by adults to serve their adult needs; but isn’t that what part of the goal of examining the history of childhood is? To essentially examine the roots of adults’ own mannerisms and desires.

Despite the difficulty I have wrapping my head around the foundations of the history of childhood and the history of children, I found an interest in the importance of children’s happiness. Part of this interest stems from a point I made in class last week that apparently made its way into Stearns’ pages. My point in class last week was that because historians have acknowledged the difficulty in processing the history of childhood, some may have delved into it during the 16th-18th centuries but gave up. Stearns acknowledges this when he mentions discussions of children’s happiness occurring during the early 1800s. Stearns writes, “…actual discussions of children in terms of happiness surfaced surprisingly slowly. There were some references in England, around 1800, but nothing very systematic” (157)… in my eyes, this means that the historians at the time gave up because the task seemed too challenging, which leaves our class with a lot of work to do.

 

Nationalism and La Marseillaise

Posted on by

Nationalism, according to Halsall, is the “most successful political philosophy of the modern era”. In order to be considered a nation, a state or group of states must have a language, tradition, or common history that binds the people, which, as stated by von Herder, must be honored by the ruler. Also, a nation is considered more legitimate in its basis than other forms of government labeled “theocracies”, “empires”, and “dynastic rights”. As a German himself, von Herder recognizes Germany’s characteristics to compile those which resemble a nation, but discerns that they are unique, “peculiar”, and different from typical attributes of a nation. Von Herder takes pride in the distinct character of his country, and believes that Germany is unparalleled in its originality and its archetype.

France distinguishes itself as a nation in a manner different from Germany. At the time of the French Revolution, nationalism is powerful in France. After having overthrown the monarchy and establishing more rights and freedoms for its people, France’s pride is at an all-time high. The French Revolution inspires the poem and national anthem “La Marseillaise”, which can be considered the embodiment of France’s status as a true nation. Through the writing of this poem, and later, France’s adoption of it as its national anthem, a type of patriotism is born. Written in French with lyrics speaking of a common history of the people, de Lisle legitimizes France as a nation. However, the national anthem is not the only factor that validates France’s standing as a nation. When Napoleon Bonaparte takes control of France, he establishes a strong and powerful army. With the foundation of an army, a nation becomes more legitimate. It can wield more power and express its character through its actions. Furthermore, the unification of a large group such as an army creates a strong identity for a country. Although he did not willingly leave his position as military leader, Napoleon strengthened France’s identity among the European nations and increased its status as a nation.

Questions to consider: Because Napoleon’s conquests were spread so far and wide, did it delegitimize France’s status as a nation? In order to be considered a nation, does a country’s population and/or geographic size need to be under a certain limit? As a nation increases in size, does it lose its identity, its respect for common history? Do greater populations result in more dialects and languages, eliminating the common language that binds a nation’s people?

 

Stearns on Education

Posted on by

Education is a major theme dispersed throughout Stearns full length book, Childhood in World History. Though mentioned sporadically through different sections of his book, I think what Stearns is trying to get at with education boils down to three main chronological themes. Firstly, how religion sparked the rise of importance of education. Secondly, the idea that children are the future led to the shift of children moving from the workplace into the classroom. Thirdly, stemming from the previous two revelations, a newfound obligation was born for parents to promote academic achievement and thus provide a solid, well-rounded education for their children.

Religion and Education

In Stearns chapter regarding childhood in the classical civilizations, he brings up how religion, Confucianism in specific, began to place an emphasis on education. At the time education was accessible largely by the upper class rather than the lower class, though in some special cases certain talented boys or girls may have received training from “an upper-class sponsor.” Regardless of class, Confucianism made it “clear that moral as well as academic instruction was essential.”

World religions began to push for a more formal religious education. This religious “surge,” as Stearns calls it, was unprecedented. The result was “a redefinition of what education was about” and “an impulse to spread elements of education more widely that had been the case in the classical centuries.” World religions attempted to bridge the gap between children and their spirituality while simultaneously promoting literacy and the importance of education.

From the Workplace to the Classroom

Stearns identifies three fundamental changes that have contributed to what we now know as modern childhood. His first and most essential change “involves the conversion of childhood from work to schooling.” In earlier western societies that were more agriculturally centered, the child was looked at to work and help provide for his or her family. Children receiving an education began to gain increasing value. A proper and well-rounded education was deemed necessary in order to be a positive contributor to society. Children were no longer children; they were future adults. They were viewed as the future. “The child is the object of state upbringing.” The amount of children attending school all across the globe skyrocketed. Not only were children going to school, but they were going to school longer, through high school and even college. “This was a real conversion: childhood now meant schooling, above all.”

A Parent’s Obligation

As the role of education changed and gained increasing prominence, the natural responsibilities of being a parent changed as well. Education evolved from being a luxury enjoyed by the upper-class to a universally acknowledged necessity. Slowly but surely, “growing numbers of middle- and even lower-middle-class parents began to send children to at least a year or two of secondary school.” In the West, the education of females became more common due to the notion that, “in a modern society, mothers must be educated in order to raise their children properly.” As children began to be looked at as the keys to the future rather than simple emotionless objects, education became a fundamental and essential part of life.