Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 8

Humanities desk
< May 7	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 8

Conservative sociologists

Many of the pionneers of sociology were 19th century leftists such as Comte, Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto, Max Weber, etc. They advanced the views of positivism, naturalism, dialectic materialism, etc.

Were these sociologists completely in line with their time or were they forward thinkers, indirectly responsable for the social systems of today ?

Why have their been so few non-leftist, non-communist, non-socialist, non-atheistic sociologists ? It seems that many of these folks were unhappy when the Berlin Wall fell down.

Also, since the Welfare State has been largely achieved thanks to many sociologists, what is the general mood in the socio-community about the decline of this socio-paradise (ie free economy + aging population) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.246.246 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your second question, one of the most famous Conservatives of our time perhaps summed it up best: "you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families." If you don't believe in the concept, then its unlikely you will chose to study it! Rockpocket 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think most sociologists would take issue with your statement that they though the end of the Cold War was a bad thing or that they supported either the USSR or the GDR. Most American leftists in any case were not pro-Soviet, even if they were self-described socialists. There's a big difference in thinking socialism is a more just system of government and believing the implementation of that in Russia or East Germany was a good one.

I don't really know how to answer the question about them "forward thinkers", but you've set up a false dilemma. It's highly possible, perhaps most likely, that they were both not in line with their time but not very much responsible for the social systems of today. Just because one is not "completely in line with their time" (whatever that means) doesn't mean one is actually influential in the sense you mean.

Is the "welfare state" in decline? The very term "welfare state" is a pejorative coined by those who think it is in decline, so you're biasing things from the beginning then. Personally I think there's a strong argument to be made that the idea of some state care of its people is not in decline even if some implementations are currently inefficient or purposefully failing (there have been many attempts to purposefully botch many of the elements of the "welfare state" in the US by those who would like to see it fail).

I am also, personally, not sure how one puts positivism and dialectical materialism on a scale of "leftist" ideas. It strikes me as a rather crude application of modern day political debates to rather complicated 19th century concepts about the nature of knowledge.

Lastly, as to professional biases among sociologists: 1. I'm not sure I buy that there is one; just because a few of the big names in the discipline fall into a given category doesn't mean that the entire discipline does, but if it did, 2. sociology is an approach that cares more about the collective than the individual, the point where the idea of individual free will is implicitly ignored in favor of aggregate understandings. It's not too much of a leap to assume that such an approach would be more naturally appealing to people of one political stripe or another. But again, I would be dubious of such an easy dismissal. It's true that for many reasons academia itself currently leans left, but whether sociologists are more left-leaning than, say, historians or anthropologists, I am dubious. I am not sure we need to create a special explanation just for sociologists, is all I am saying. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a 'question' that already suggests a desired response! Before I proceed I have a confession to make which you may feel, 69.157, invalidates my answer. You see, my boyfriend took a sociology degree at King's College, Cambridge and is now advancing the world revolution as a junior partner in a firm of City of London stockbrokers. Venceremos!

Anyway, I sympathise with your need to deepen your understanding of the nature of sociology as an academic discipline, because it really is most terribly weak as it stands. Anyone who believes that August Comte, Emile Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto and Max Weber were nineteenth century 'leftists', whatever that is supposed to mean, really is in need of some serious enlightenment. Pareto, for example, was one of the proponents of elite theory, and was greatly admired by the Italian Fascists. Mussolini himself is alleged to have attended his lectures at Lausanne. After the March on Rome he honoured Pareto by appointing him a Senator of the Kingdom of Italy.

The one obvious 'leftist' that you did not mention is, of course, Karl Marx, whose notions of Historical materialism have had some influence on certain branches of sociological inquiry. Dialectical materialism, in contrast, a later invention, belongs to the arena of philosophy and political polemic, not to sociology. The political thought of Marx was, of course, the inspiration for twentieth-century Communism, though I seriously doubt that he would have recognised or understood the 'social systems' established in his name. Pareto, I suppose, might be said to have given the loosest credibility to forms of right-wing authoritarianism. So far as I am aware there are no Comteist, Durkheimist or Weberist social systems!

Now, if I think of sociology as a modern discipline I think primarily of its expansion in the United States, where a strong tradition of Functionalism was established under the influence of Talcott Parsons, that well-known leftie! Taking the opposite approach (in methodology, if not in politics!) is the ethnomethodology of Harold Garfinkel, as well as the other currents of microsociology. Latterly the Postmodernism and Post-structuralism have become important, but the positivist tradition is alive and well in the likes of the American Journal of Sociology and the American Sociological Review. Have a look, why don't you?

Yes, I'm sure that there must have been 'some of those folks' who lamented the fall of the Berlin Wall (surely there must?) though I suspect most sociologists in the Marxist tradition were not that enamoured of the hide-bound and bureaucratic forms of Stalinism prevalent in Eastern Europe, a doctrine never that sympathetic to original thought, or social inquiry, of any kind.

I have no idea which 'Welfare State' you are referring to, but I can assure you the variety established in England owed nothing to sociologists and everything to old-fashioned Liberals, like William Beveridge. I can offer no comment on the 'socio-community' or the 'socio-paradise' because I have not the least idea what either of these terms means. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Afroamerries

Why are most African Americans from the Southern states? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 10:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Start with African American history and come back if you still have and questions Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional information: the plantations where the African slaves were put to work were located in the Southern Colonies, whose area constitutes largely the current Southern United States. The reason they were located in the South and not in the North is primarily the climate needed for growing tobacco, rice, and later cotton, the main cash crops. In the Southern Colonies, winters were mild and summers were hot.  --Lambiam 14:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

University

What is the age range for university students? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 10:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

8 to 95.--droptone (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For age 8, see Song Yoo-geun; and here is one at age 9: [1].  --Lambiam 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Although there is no age limit, the usual range (at least in the US) is the four years immediately after high school - this works out to around 18-22. Note that even within the "usual" there is some flexibility, with 17 year old high school graduates, super seniors, and people who take a break from education for a number of years after high school to join the military, work at a company, or travel the world. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that after completion of the bachelor's degree, some people choose to pursue advanced degrees like a Ph.D. or an M.D.. The time for these degrees is much more variable than the bachelor's, ranging from 4-8 years (or even longer). Although these people are technically considered "students" at the university, usually when people refer to "university students", they usually are thinking of bachelor's level, not the Ph.D./M.D. level. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but if we exclude outliers we can provide a more useful answer. In England many students start universiy either straight after school or after a gap year, so a typical age on entering university is 17 to 19. Most undergraduate courses are three, four or five years (including a gap year in industry for some courses such as enginneering), so a typical age at graduation is 21 to 24. There are, of course, many exceptions. Medical degrees take longer. Students studying for a second or higher degree will tend to be older. It is possible to go to university at any time during your adult life (financial constraints permitting), and become a mature student. And the age profile of students enrolled at a distance learning university, such as the Open University, will be very different from the norm. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf, I'm confused, surely you've got this wrong. In England you're in the upper sixth in the academic year of your 18th birthday, so even the youngest members of the year would have turned 18 by the time they are freshers. Surely that makes 17 unusually young (if only a little). I know my hall of residence had a bar, without worrying whether the residents were old enough to drink at it. AndyJones (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Students in Scotland take their Highers at 17, and Scots with good enough grades can get into English universities. (Although they have to pay fees, which they would not hva to in Scottish universities.) Scots students regularly start university at 17 in Scotland. SaundersW (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tin Drum 2

who is the guy marching in to the fanfare that oscar turns into a dance? L S M M (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Parteigenosse Albert Forster, Gauleiter of Danzig. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Eva the Jew Hater

Did Eva Braun share her husband's views? L S M M (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You probably mean his political views? According to some informed accounts, such as Speer's, Eva Braun was indifferent to politics but completely devoted to Hitler. It seems she would have agreed with almost anything he said or did, and no doubt much of her charm for Hitler was that she didn't question or challenge him at all. So I think it would be a mistake to say she actively agreed with him, but true that she was happy to accept the worst sides of him with the better.

You say "her husband". In the day or so of their marriage, Hitler's mind was focussed on what to do in complete failure, and his new wife evidently agreed to die with him. Is there a more complete agreement than that? Xn4 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Angela Lambert touches on this issue (the question of possible anti-Semitism) in her The Lost Life of Eva Braun (Arrow Books, 2007). A lot of this book is, given the nature of the subject, really quite tendentious, and all the author says is that anti-Semitism was not part of Eva's emotional world. It would hardly be possible to describe her as having any kind of intellectual life, at least not that we know of; for she left no traces. Personally I can see no reason to dispute Lambert's subjective conclusion, though I think I would have preferred to say that there is no evidence that she expressed any form of hatred towards the Jews, Hitler's views notwithstanding. It's as well to remember that goodness is sometimes just as banal as evil. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Prisioners in the English Civil War

Please can someone help me. My name is John Evans. I am doing a project on the english cival war of the time of Charles the first. We have all been told to select some aspect of this and present a report. I thought I would write about how prisoners of war were treated. So far I've not found an awful lot of information. If you can give me an outline and sugest where else I can look I would be really pleased. I hope this is alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John D Evans (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, it's fine. And a good question, because our prisoners of war article skips right over that period, and our two civil war articles this one and this one don't say much about prisoners (though they do say a bit, so you might want to check). As to where you *could* look, here are some starting suggestions. I'm sure you'll get more and better soon.

• Although this is after the war, Samuel Pepys in his diary discusses prisoners of war fairly often – mainly I think how much it costs to look after them, so you can infer they weren't eating well.
• Ask at the library for these books: The Oxford History of the Prison and Encyclopedia of Prisoners of War & Internment.
• Or if your library has a subscription to British History Online I see there are some documents from the period on the topic.

Best on your project WikiJedits (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

John, you may be interested to know that the first book that WikiJedits suggested, The Oxford History of the Prison, is viewable at google books, in case your local library doesn't have it.Snorgle (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

John, it's a good topic, though I suspect that you may find it difficult to discover the kind of secondary sources that you obviously need.

The first thing you should note is that the opposing armies a adopted formal Articles of War, based on the Laws and Ordinances of War published during the Bishops' Wars with the Scots. Under these Articles a soldier surrendering in battle had a right to quarter, though, in practice, this was frequently violated. Even troops who had been guaranteed safe conduct were often robbed, even of the clothes they were wearing. After the Battle of Naseby in 1645 soldiers of the New Model Army massacred a number of women in the Royalist camp on the pretext that they were 'Irish and of cruel countenance.' The year before Parliament amended its own Articles of War by forbidding the granting of quarter to Irish soldiers captured in England. This was only rescinded after Prince Rupert, Charles I's leading commander, hanged thirteen Parliamentary prisoners in February 1645 in retaliation for the hanging of thirteen Irish Royalists.

As far as the bigger picture is concerned, the taking of prisoners en mass, you must remember that the seventeenth century state had neither the means nor the ability to take care of large groups of captives. There were, in other words, no prisoner of war camps. One way round this was to release captives on parole, on promise that they would not take up arms in future against whatever side they happened to be fighting. Alternatively, many might opt to join the enemy army. Where this was not possible, or practical, then the outlook for the prisoners could be quite bleak. Here you might consider the fate of the Scots taken captive in the Battle of Dunbar in 1650. Most of these were marched south to Durham, and there incarcerated in the Cathedral, where a great many died of starvation or neglect. Of the 5000 or so men taken at Dunbar it is thought that over 3500 subsequently died, more than had been killed in the battle itself. Those that survived were transported to the English colonies in the Americas, or to the Caribbean, as slaves. The same fate awaited those taken at the Battle of Preston and the Battle of Worcester.

So, prisoners of war died in their thousands, less because of deliberate cruelty and more because neither side had the apparatus or the means to deal with the problem of large numbers of captives; but they still died.

I have one interesting piece of trivia that you might wish to make use of. The phrase to Send to Coventry, meaning to ostracise someone, is thought to derive from the Civil War period. In his History of the Rebellion and Civil wars in England, Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon says that Royalist prisoners captured at Birmingham were taken to Coventry, a Parliamentary stronghold, where they were shunned by the local people. The best of luck! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Serving as Vice-President & Secretary of State Concurrently

Is there any legal reason that prevents the President of the US from nominating the Vice-president of the US for another cabinet level position such as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense? Is there a reason a person could not hold both posts at the same time? Could a person serve as both US VP and Director of the National Security Agency(NSA)?

Could Barack Obama offer Hillary Clinton the VP slot on the Democratic ticket with the understanding that she would also serve as Secretary of State? In effect, upgrading her role in his administration.

129.230.236.1 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution doesn't allow the same person to hold two Constitutional positions at the same time. Corvus cornix_talk 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You sure about that? It doesn't allow members of Congress to hold other offices; I don't see where it says that about the Veep. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The veep is the president of the senate, voting in ties, so he holds two offices by the constitution. The cabinet is mentioned only as "principal Officers in each of the executive Departments" appointed by the president, with the "Advice and Consent of the Senate.", so I don't think there's anything illegal about it.John Z (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that two offices? President of the Senate is a duty of the VP, not a separate position. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution forbids members of Congress to "hold[] any office", and forbids the President to "receive ... any other emolument" than his salary as President, but I don't see any such restriction on the VP; nor does this forbid the President to act as unpaid Secretary of Anything. The other executive officers are the President's deputies anyway. —Tamfang (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Aelia Capitolina

Was Hadrian's foundation of this settlement, which led to the Bar Kokhba revolt, a deliberate act of provocation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.139 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hadrian, prior to the revolt, was notably sympathetic to the Jews, and his promise to rebuild Jerusalem should be seen in that light. In retrospect, putting a giant temple to Jupiter at the centre of the plan, while hardly surprising in that it followed the template of imperial cities elsewhere, was probably unwise. It was after the bloody battles of the revolt that he turned against the religion, believing it to be the cause of frequent revolts in Syria Palaestina. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that is the case; I can certainly detect little in the way of sympathy towards the Jews on the Emperor's part. From the outset Aelia Capitolina was intended as a wholly pagan city, to be populated by Roman soldiers. Hadrian must have known that to erect what was for all practical purposes a military garrison on the sacred city of the Jews was an immense provocation. There was no magnanimity or generosity in the action, no attempt to pacify the local people, or to remind them that their Emperor had their well-being at heart. Jews were specifically forbidden to enter the new settlement, except for one day a year. But the most serious affront of all was the erection of the Temple of Jupiter on the foundations of the Second Temple, an unmistakable symbol of Jewish subjugation and humiliation. It would seem that Hadrian could not have done more to provoke the Bar Kokhba revolt, whether that was his intention or not. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Darkness at Noon

Did Koestler base the character of Rubashov on any particular individual? Yermelov (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Darkness at Noon#Characters has some discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikolai Bukharin is the generally accepted candidate, though Stephen F. Cohen, his biographer, has exploded the connection. In practice Darkness at Noon is Arthur Koestler's own confession. He is Rubashov, not Bukharin. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Stalin

Did Stalin play ping pong? 99.226.26.154 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The only scenario I can envision in which Stalin would have played ping pong would have been if Mao introduced it to him when he visited Moscow - which did not happen. Mao was too busy talking about his political and social ideas and, in my opinion, Stalin was just trying to get him to go home. So, they had no play time. -- kainaw™ 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that sometimes he played ping, and sometimes he played pong. But never in a row. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but he's great at Hip hop! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Soviets actually banned ping pong between 1930 and 1950, because they thought the rapid movements of the ball would cause eye damage in spectators (this is briefly mentioned in the Table tennis article). So my guess is he wouldn't have played it in public, anyway... Dooky (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

GDP

How do organizations get the information to calculate GDP? I suppose tax reports must help, but what other resources do they use to compile the figures? Especially in developing countries, even if they make estimates, what evidence do they base it on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.26.154 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See GDP. The most-used raw equation is the "expenditure method":

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M) Spencer^T♦C 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He/she's not asking what formulae they use, he's asking where they get the data for the formulae from. Where do you get raw data for "gross investment" and "consumption" and "exports"? ("government spending" is in the government's budget, obviously). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, covered by above too) Be aware there are two separate ways to calculate GDP. One, the market value of all final goods and services produced in a country, and two, consumption + investment + government purchases + net exports. To calculate GDP the second way is relatively easy, because its components can be estimated or calculated from readily available tax-related information, specifically, the wages of consumers, the budget of the government, and the investments of firms.

In developing countries, these statistics are usually available as well, but are less accurate, because developing countries generally have a large informal economy of goods and services produced that are not monitored by the government. The problem appears in Western countries as well: if I mow my lawn, it is not counted in GDP. If I establish a holding company for my lawn, and I lease my lawn from that company for €1, then employ myself there to mow the lawn for €1, GDP suddenly increased by €1. User:Krator (t c) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above: Following links from our GDP page gets you to this UN site [2] which should help answer the question. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Painting, Art, Heralding the Dawn

I am looking for an art painting, which is on a wall or dome/ceiling. There is Prophet Ezekiel in the painting. He is standing on the right. There is also Prophet Jonah in the painting. He is standing besides Prophet Ezekiel. Prophet Jonah is naked. There are two angels in the painting. The angels are on the left of Prophet Jonah, and they are flying horizontally towards him. One angel is seraphim angel, who is blowing a trumpet. The trumpet indicates it is not very old painting. The other angel is cherubim angel, who is blowing air. On the left of the angels is a hand. This hand is presumed be that of Jesus. This hand is just one hand, it includes the whole arm. Behind the angels are other people. The Prophets, the angels, and the other people are Heralding the Dawn, welcoming the dawn. I have seen this image in a magazine, years 2004, 2005 or 2006, in the early part of the year. The magazine is either Newsweek, or Harvard Magazine, but I am not sure which one it is. I do not clearly remember the painter, but I think it is someone called Rainer; just one name was given in the caption of the image. This name indicates it may be a French painting. Can you help me locate this painting either on the Internet, Wikipedia, or a book, which I can purchase?

Manilal.daya (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I only know of Arnulf Rainer but his work doesn't really match your painting, that I can find. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Crime vs. social phenomenon

There is a tendency within the legal system to employ social science to an extent which declares that certain crimes are no longer crimes anymore, but have become mere social phenomenon.

How does one correctly draw the line between the two ? Is all crime sociological, being the product of an interdict ? And currently, isn't there a legal campaign to have declare that pedophilia is a mere fact of society, and that some pedophiles are socially acceptable, as was previously done with homosexuality and abortion ?

Is it possible to live in a society which recognizes no crimes, merely social trends, or is that a utopia ? 69.157.246.246 (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one correctly draw the line between a crime and a social phenomenon? In the simplest terms, the line is drawn by having a government declare it illegal. For example, domestic violence is a social phenomenon until someone makes a law that says it is a crime. Most human activity can be safely classified as social phenomena. As to how that is done "correctly", that pretty much depends on the system of government, the moral atmosphere and other related things, but that's getting to be another discussion.

As for a legal campaign to declare pedophilia a "mere fact of society", there are probably a number of them out there somewhere, but seeing as I don't even know what country you are in, I couldn't begin to comment on that with any degree of accuracy. Suffice to say that organizations like NAMBLA have campaigned to legalize relations between adults and children. However, it should be pointed out that there are always campaigns to declare something something else, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they are significant, influential or reasonable -- and in any case, views towards homosexuality are not necessarily compatible with views towards abortion, and neither view may be compatible with pedophilia. They are not related issues, except on the level that at some point in time, they were or are illegal in various cultures. But that's not much of a connection, really; a lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal, and a lot of things that used to be legal are now illegal, all over the world.

It's theoretically possible to live in a society which recognizes no crimes, but I'm not at all confident that it would be a utopia. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just cut to the chase, 69.157-Sociology is the root of all evil. That's what you want to hear, isn't it? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the edit history, it does kind of look like there's an agenda here. Ho hum. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See Decriminalization. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)