Why Tocqueville is relevant

I believe that reading and discussing "How an Aristocracy May Be Created by Industry" remains relevant to today's world because it is important to recognize that the circumstances of some portion of the modern work force is a byproduct of industry in a democratic country, not solely corrupt politicians or businessmen. Historically, the world has perhaps not changed as much as we would like to believe. When Tocqueville published "Democracy in America", well into the Industrial Revolution worldwide, the "work world" so to speak was very different than it is today; yet his average low socioeconomic worker is a man who makes heads for pins, ours is the cashier at McDonald's. Today's common worker still "loses the general faculty of applying his mind to the way he is working" because of his occupation and "becomes weaker, more limited and more dependent" on his job and employer (125).
In a capitalist democratic society such as we are, it appears that creating a world with some form of aristocracy is impossible. As Tocqueville says "the workman is dependent on masters in  general, but not on a particular master" (127). Therefore, we, in order to remain a functioning society, require some form of aristocracy. It is not greedy businessmen or politicians that force a part of our society into poverty, it is a consequence of industry in a democratic society.

Relevant Then, But Not So Much Now

          Alex de Tocqueville was a brilliant man, and the issues with democracy at the time that he mentioned were valid, but those statements aren't as valid as they used to be. The aristocracy and unfairness of those times created a rift between the classes, and the wealthier people tended to also have more power. This lead to an imbalance at the time, but this imbalance was limited mostly to industry. It was also, "not at all like those that have preceded it." (Tocqueville, 127) Even back then, the supposed "aristocracy," wasn't even the same kind of aristocracy that the others before it was. The difference was that it was contained in industry, preventing much unfairness in areas like the voting system.
          Is it possible, even in the unfairness, that this wasn't a total aristocracy? Today, much of the unfairness in the voting system is gone. Everyone has an equal voice, and equal opportunity. Tocqueville's relevance has faded over time as the equality of the classes has increases. Our democracy is a perfect model of what happens over time as the government develops and equalizes the classes. There are still problems, but every form of government has issues.

Why does Tocqueville say that the worker has been assigned to a certain position in society instead of a certain job?

  Tocqueville believes that workers of large industry have been assigned a statues of lower class instead of being classified to a specific job description because large industry’s creates inequality and limits man’s progression. Inequality is shown through the workman and the owner of the industry by the jobs they perform. The workman is performing a task that is repeated over and over again, which becomes a robotic and mindless job. The workman becomes stuck in one job that does not challenge his mind thus making him a simple minded man with not much power and has lower statues in life.  

  Then there is the master or owner of the industry who has many job descriptions and tasks that his mind is being challenged for it. The owner becomes more powerful and greater by the day than the lower workman. What Tocqueville is saying is that the workman and the owner don’t have the same opportunity as each other because of their class, and higher rank in life.

Why does democracy tend toward inequality?

Why does democracy tend toward inequality? Or, as it appears to me, why does Tocqueville believe that a democracy leads towards aristocracy, a form of inequality? In our selection Tocqueville writes that “…just while the mass of the nation is turning toward democracy, that particular class which is engaged in industry becomes more aristocratic” (127). The most important part of that statement is industry. Tocqueville is not saying that democracy, as a form of government and societal mindset, directly influences all members and factions of society to turn back to an aristocratic lifestyle. Instead, he is saying that in industry, democracy leads to an aristocracy “not at all like those that have preceded it” (127).

Now the true question, how does industry create or lead to an aristocracy? The workmen of Tocqueville’s time are mainly factory workers of the industrial revolution, men and women who sewed on buttons or putting heads on pins. These jobs were, and are, repetitive above all else. Menial jobs, done for hours every day, required no special training, no drive, ingenuity, creativity, or head for business. These men and women “no longer belong to himself but to his chosen calling” (125). The population was not an even mixture of masters and workers, but a whirling pool of men and women to exhausted and poor to do anything but work day in and day out. “In vain are all the efforts of law and morality to break down the barriers surrounding such a man and open up a thousand different roads to fortune…” (125). The creation of an aristocracy is, then, inevitable for their must be someone to organize those confined to their stations.

(If I am totally wrong, please let me know. If I didn't answer any of the prompts, let me know that too)

Tocqueville's argument is interesting to me, but it is not as sound as he thinks it is.  In his essay, he explains that the industrial work environment creates aristocracy, and how the almost unbridled proliferation of industry through democracy causes democracy to, in actuality, lead back to the very thing it is designed to eliminate: aristocracy.  This makes sense.  However, his argument takes something of a wrong turn when he claims that there is no connection between the poor and the rich.  It is very true that, in the society he describes, there is practically no connection between the worker and the master.  Each could go his separate way and no harm would be done to either.  The worker can find another job; the master can find another worker.  This is actually the downfall of Tocqueville's entire line of reasoning.  Democracy does not necessarily grant equal opportunity, it only guarantees equal rights.  It would not matter what society ones lives in, there will always be rich and there will always be poor.  It is almost as simple as natural selection.  Some are born into money, some are not.  Some make loads of money, some do not.  No matter where one was to go on the third rock from the sun, this is a true statement, and no amount of democracy is going to change that.  Democracy grants both the poor man and the rich man equal political rights.  If the democracy functions correctly, no amount of money is going to change their ability to vote, bear arms, etc. (I use American rights because they are rather important to this essay).  Therefore, the rich master and the poor worker both have the same rights and, because they are not bound to each other in some sort of "industrial slavery," there is no true aristocracy.  The worker only answers to his master because his master pays him, no more, no less, as even Tocqueville himself will attest to.
Now, one could argue that simply because the worker answers to the master and has almost no way of becoming a master himself, that it is an aristocracy.  But it is almost impossible for an industry to be truly productive or even functional without an overseer.  Furthermore, this worker is likely producing a good that his comrades, additional workers in other industries or even he himself needs to survive and thrive.  While his work is benefiting the master, it is also directly benefiting the worker himself and his fellow men, his brother workers.
In conclusion, the worker and the master do not have equal opportunity.  This fact is virtually inescapable.  Tocqueville's concern with it is valid, but it is not an issue that is easily fixed.  But his true issue seems to be with democracy.  Truly, the master and the worker have equal political rights, and he himself said that neither is bound to the other, so democracy is not the culprit, and industry does not create an undeniable aristocracy.  It is really a matter of natural selection.

Why Does Ivan Deny the Beating is Evil?

In After The Ball, by Leo Tolstoy, the main character, Ivan, falls in love with a beautiful woman and meets her father, a Colonel.  Hours later, he witnesses the savage beating of a Tartar, under the direction of the Colonel.  Even though Ivan felt ill watching the beating, he couldn't recognize if it was evil or not, at least not right away.  What are the reasons why?
     He liked the Colonel and thought he was a good man.  That made him look for reasons to explain away his actions as acceptable.  “Obviously he knows something that I don’t,” he told himself.  “If I knew what he knows, I would understand what I saw and it wouldn't torment me.”  (187)
     Because of the environment he was in and the people around him, Ivan was more inclined to convince himself that what he was seeing was not evil.  The soldiers, the Colonel, and the people watching all seemed to agree that this was necessary, or at least felt they couldn't stop the beating, that it had to happen.  “If it was done with such certainty and it was recognized by everyone as being inevitable, then it follows that they must have known something I didn't,” he thought (187).
     Probably if he had decided it was evil, he would have immediately realized that the Colonel and his daughter were people he didn't want in his life. And though over time, he let go of her, it was hard for him to accept right away.

After the Ball

Ivan Vasilevich, in After the Ball by Leo Tolstoy, links Varenka B. to her father because of the subtle similarities between the two characters throughout the story. In his first description of Varenka, Ivan calls her “tall, slim, graceful, and regal,” with a “tender, invariably merry smile”, still beautiful at age fifty (177). This description of Varenka is reflected a few pages later in the introduction of her father the colonel, a “tall, imposing figure,” with “the same tender, merry smile,” as his daughter (181). A visible connection is expected, being father and daughter, but that smile continues to be a subtle theme throughout the short story, for after Ivan witnesses the gauntlet he is reminded of the act by Varenka’s smile. It is so disconcerting, and the act so repulsive, to him that this constant remainder drives him away from pursing any contact with Varenka.

There are other similarities between the two, neither of Varenka nor her father speak much (the communication is basically through smiles) and both reluctantly reveal signs of poverty. During the colonel’s dance with his daughter, Ivan notices his unfashionable homemade boots with square toes, and earlier he made a casual remark about Varenka’s “cheap, white fan” (180). It is these similarities that cause Ivan to be unable to pursue his previous relationship with that family after witnessing the cruelty of the gauntlet.

Why is Ivan so “ashamed” when the Colonel looks at him and recognizes him?

   “After the ball,” by Leo Tolstoy, Leo has his main character, Ivan Vasilevich, tell his love story. Ivan Vasilievich claims that everything in his life depends on chances, as he recalls how the direction of his own life changed one night after a ball. He left the ball drunk with love after dancing with Varenka, the beautiful daughter of a colonel. Unable to sleep that night, Ivan wandered towards Varenka's home. 
    Near her house, he saw a military procession and heard the sounds of a drum. A runaway Tartar was being fiercely beaten under the control of Varenka's father. Filled with grief at what he had witnessed just because the Tartar ran away, Ivan questioned what the Colonel knew that he didn't.  Could the Tartar have done something more than just ran away for such a brutal consequence? But regardless, Ivan believed no one should be beaten that way. As he was watching the Colonel, the Colonel looked over and recognized Ivan. Ivan couldn’t decide what to do because he was shocked and so disappointed in the Colonel and himself for just watching.  He didn’t know if he should help the Tartar or leave. Ivan felt humiliated and betrayed at what he saw the Colonel could do under that white upswept mustache and radiant smile.  Ivan chose to leave. He felt at fault and ashamed for not helping the Tartar that night. As a result of this significant event, Ivan decided not to do any of the things that he had planned to do in the future. His love for Varenka fell apart and soon came to nothing. Ivan's love for the beautiful girl subsided away, because thoughts of her lead back to memories of the Colonel.

Who is happier: Semyon or Vasily?

          In Anton Chekhov's "In Exile," there is a prominent message that the primary character, Semyon, is pushing toward the others: "...if you want to be happy, the very first thing is to not want anything.(pg. 77).  This is a philosophy that he lives by, and also what gives him his nickname, Preacher.   His lifestyle is the perfect way to live out life in exile.  While he may be rude and mocking in his behavior, Semyon is definitely happier, or at least more stable, than Vasily.

          Vasily spends his time in exile swaying up and down (emotionally).  Yes, he has the companionship of his wife and daughter to begin with, giving him true happiness in exile, but his wife soon leaves him, presumably sending him into sadness.  Later, he gains joy from his daughter, but she becomes diseased, potentially fatally, and this, presumably, sends him into sadness.  After his daughter's sickness is diagnosed, he spends his days going from place to place, travelling long distances finding doctors so that his daughter can be healed.  But after a long (undefined in the story) time, he is still searching to no avail, his daughter's condition worsening.  He is chasing after a happiness that has not come to him, seeking something that could be impossible.  He has the companionship of his daughter, but he has spent exorbitant amounts of money to try to cure her, sending for and going to doctor after doctor, while she deteriorates.  

          During the story, Vasily changes behaviorally.  Toward the beginning (when his wife first arrives), he is described as "...panting with joy." (pg. 77).  At the end (while he is going to fetch yet another doctor), he "...stood motionless all the way back, his thick lips tightly compressed, his eyes fixed on one spot." (pg. 83).  It is safe to assume that, at this point, he is feeling no joy, he is only searching for it.

          Semyon, on the other hand, is completely consistent in his mocking tone throughout the entirety of the work.  He has nothing, wants nothing, and condemns those who do want things.  He may be doing this because of his own criminal past, it may be because he has seen the emotional flip-flopping in the life of Vasily and perhaps others before him (he is an old man and it is never said how long he has been in exile).  Either way, Semyon seems completely content in his lifestyle (if not for a touch bitter), and his emotional state is most certainly stable, even if that stability does not lie in joy.

in exile, is Seymon or Vasiley happier?

Seymon, an old man of sixty, lean, toothless and a drunk, is a man of many words, which are not very sympathetic. His days are spent ferrying people from one bank of the River to the other.  As new exiles arrive on the island, Seymon enjoys telling them there is no hope and nothing will get better and there is nothing good on the island. Seymon is content to live in misery and give up on finding any happiness. Then there’s Vasily, Vasily was sent to the island for forging a will. His life on the island was spent chasing money. He needed money to support his wife and daughter. Vasily took chances unlike Seymon who lived for nothing and no-one. Vasily, lived a life with chances.

            Vasily, lived a life with chances. He was happier with life than Seymon. Vasily had a young beautiful wife and a daughter, and also bought a house and land there too. Vasliy experienced life the way it was supposed to be, lively and free but also with sorrow. He also had hope that his life would be good in Siberia with his wife and daughter. Overall and in the end, Vasliy seemed happier with his life because he had all those things. Even though at the end his wife did leave him for someone else, and his daughter was ill he at least had things that cared for him.

To Outsource is to Survive

     Outsourcing is an action which has been used for longer than many would care to think about, but has recently taken on a negative connotation.  The word "outsource" is commonly used these days as an attack on a business or company while, in reality, it actually is not too bad.  Outsourcing, whether overseas or to that guy down the street, is a critical part of maintaining a healthy business.  This applies to all businesses, big or small, whatever their field.  To outsource, as the wonderful Merriam-Webster will attest to, is "to procure (as some goods or services needed by a business organization) under contract with an outside supplier."  This is exactly the idea that Adam Smith was trying to explain in "Concerning the Division of Labor."  Smith explained: "In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other.  He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions, and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them."  This bow maker is outsourcing the hunting and breeding of beasts to those who are talented and playing to his strengths so that he can thrive.  To stay in business, a company must play to its strengths, and it must outsource its weaknesses.  If the head of a small accounting business has a background in accounting (which he should, obviously), it makes sense for him to keep track of his business' own money and expenses.  However, it is unlikely that this accountant has any experience with web design or advertising, both of which are rather necessary for a small business to succeed in modern times.  So, to save time and money, and to increase his chances of success, this accountant will keep his books, manage his clients, and he will hire a coding team form India and a local advertising company.  He simply cannot do these things on his own, so he must outsource for his business to be a success.


NOTE: I understand that this may not answer the prompt effectively, but I found it to be a very interesting argument, so I went with it.  I can do more if you would like. Please let me know what you think.

Outsourcing in the Fashion Industry

Outsourcing in the Fashion Industry

by

Abigail Roberts

At the moment outsourcing is a very controversial issue in almost every industries. Some say keep the jobs in America, others beg to differ that Americans would rather have cheaper products than spend more money on the same quality of products. Currently the majority of the fashion industries are outsourcing because it is more economically smart, but controversial to what they think, according to studies done by Stanford graduates clothing stores could increase their profit margins by 10% to 40% by bringing their business back to our country. Living in America we are all very concerned with the present, we want things now! This is especially true in the fashion industry, no one wants to be wearing last seasons Jimmy Choo’s Trina Pointy when Panama Wedge Sneakers are all the rage. Styles and trends can change in as little as four months, giving retail stores a short time window to order, produce, and ship their goods to stores to be sold.

Outsourcing to Asia not only takes jobs from Americans, but it also takes more time and as a result stores are getting clothes months after the trend has started. Because the more you order the cheaper it is companies tend to order in mass quantities. The issue with this is that when fashion companies choose to outsource the clothing stores who distribute them get clothes later and they end up getting more of them then they need. As a result the clothes become last season and end up on the clearance rack. Selling clothes at reduced prices to just get them out of the store is a huge waste of money. Also when clothes are being made in Asia the companies' managers cannot oversee the production of goods as closely and easily, leading to the production of worse quality clothes. If the fashion industry were to move back to America than they would be able to keep a closer eye on production and order the correct number of clothes with how popular the trend is without having to worry about it taking so long.  
Sources: 
Rigoglioso, Marguerite. "Stanford Graduate School of Business." Outsourcing May Hurt Fashion Manufacturers' Bottom Line. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2014
Belcher,, Lynda Moultry, and Demand Media. "The Negative Effects of Outsourcing in the Clothing Industry." Small Business. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2014.

Outsourcing in the Entertainment Industry

Like many industries, the entertainment industry is being affected by outsourcing, also known as ‘runaway production’. Because of government subsidies and lower production costs, film and T.V. production is moving outside of Hollywood and outside of the USA (James, 2012). This is making it so skilled craftsmen can’t make a living where they live, and need to move elsewhere and work for less money, or completely lose their jobs.  According to the 2001 report "Impact of the Migration of U.S. Film and Television Production". Department of Commerce Secretary Norman Mineta states, "Runaway film production' has affected thousands of US workers in industries ranging from computer graphic to construction workers and caterers. These losses threaten to disrupt important parts of a vital American industry." However, because the production is creating new jobs in these other countries, their economies are flourishing while ours is suffering.
Because movies are under pressure to wow their audiences with special effects that are better than other movies, the bar keeps going up, making costs much larger.  For example, the movie Aliens, produced in 1986, cost a total of $18 million, while a more recent movie with similar subject matter and special effects, Avatar, made in 2009, cost $237 million (IMDB.com). Sometimes movies don’t have a big enough budget to have workers located in their own country, requiring outsourcing. The governments of other countries make it less expensive to produce there than other places by offering subsidies. For example, Canada gives subsidies to movie studios that outsource their work there ("The Decline of Foreign Location Production in Canada"._. Another incentive to outsource to other countries is that labor is cheaper in these areas, due to the living expenses being much lower.  This allows companies to pay less to hire workers, keeping overall production costs lower and profits higher.
While runaway production is creating new jobs for other countries and strengthening their economy as well as helping studios to keep production costs lower, the true cost of outsourcing in the entertainment industry is that our economy suffers because of the loss of jobs and the weakening of this industry in our country.
Sources:
"Impact of the Migration of U.S. Film and Television Production". United States Department of Commerce. 2001. Retrieved 2014-3-4.
James, Kevin. Outsourcing Hollywood, Billions Leave Local Economy, Families
Separated.  Huffington Post.com. 2012.  Retrieved 2014-3-4.

"The Decline of Foreign Location Production in Canada". Government of Canada. 2005-05-24.

                                         The True Cost of Outsourcing

Currently on the Apple website there is a video entitled “Designed by Apple in California”. Why is this not entitled something like “Built by Apple in California” or “Created by Apple in California, or even something as straight forward as “Manufactured by Apple in California”? This is because any one of these examples would not be truthful. According to Entrepreneur.com, Apple outsources its product manufacturing not to save money but to save time. Let’s take a moment and think about what that means. Apple has decided to take jobs from Americans and move them to Asian countries such as: Mongolia, Taiwan, and China. “The period to hire 8,700 engineers to manage 200,000 factory workers is: 09 Months in the US and 15 days in China” (Entrpreneur.com) In 2011 the “Apple pie” was cut into three slices, there were 700,000 foreign-held jobs, 43,000 US held jobs and 20,000 US-held jobs abroad.

Based on the information provided, Apple moved out of the United States not for fear of losing their company; or to stay in business but to cut down production time, to please stock holders and to maintain the CEO’s inflated salary, case in point Apple CEO Tim Cook, makes "$1,400,000 annually" (Forbes.com), that’s $3835.61 per day. “Worldwide, its stores sold $16 billion in merchandise. But most of Apple’s employees enjoyed little of that wealth… About 30,000 of the 43,000 Apple employees in this country work in Apple Stores, as members of the service economy, and many of them earn about $25,000 a year.” (Forbes.com) If the true cost of outsourcing is American jobs in order to save time for a multi-billion dollar corporation; is it worth it?

Outsourcing for Manufacturing

     Before I even start on this subject, is outsourcing really a bad thing? It does damage the economy in a short term effect, but as the other countries we are outsourcing to grow their economies, the more jobs are flowing in from outside sources. This is especially helpful in the manufacturing industry. A good example was when GM, Ford, and Chrysler outsourced to areas such as Mexico, Canada, and regions in Central and South America in order to compete with the other foreign car industries such as Toyota, Kia, or Nissan. The companies were able to stay afloat, but the immediate issue was the lack of jobs in the manufacturing industry from American companies. The problem fixed itself because the foreign companies insourced more jobs to compete with the now more efficient companies they need to go against.
     Yes, we sent jobs to other countries, but they flowed back from different ones so that their companies would still be able make a profit in America. More jobs were created than were lost, and the outsourcing of those companies allows for the business itself to grow. This creates even more jobs, making up for the ones sent overseas to other nations. Jobs from outside nations are even better because they bring in new money to the economy. This stimulates the economy and allows for growth. The smaller the economy of a nation, the more likely jobs will be insourced. The more companies outsource jobs, the more jobs that flow in, and that increases the circulation of money. The cost of outsourcing jobs in manufacturing is immediate difficulty for Americans, but future economic growth.

Outsourcing for Breast Cancer

          What does “outsourcing” really mean? According to the google dictionary, to outsource is to “obtain (goods or a service) from an outside or foreign supplier, esp. in place of an internal source”. Normally when we think of outsourcing, we think of big companies like Apple, Chase or Google outsourcing jobs like customer service or manufacturing, although whether the effect is positive or negative is up for discussion. Americans also think about “internal outsourcing”, as in farmers hiring illegal (foreign) immigrants to pick strawberries. However, “outsourcing” in a charity is not as common a thought. When you outsource jobs in a charity, you are not hiring people in India to run customer service; instead you are obtaining a good (money) from outside sources as an alternative of initially raising it yourself.

As a general rule, “outsourcing” has a negative connation. For non-profits, it’s a necessity. In his TED talk, The way we think about charity is dead wrong, Dan Pallotta offered an excellent example of the benefits of outsourcing for charities. Say you run a breast cancer charity, like Pallotta did, and you want to start fundraising so you can donate money to the American Cancer Society. You want to keep overhead low, so you’ve got to start small and decide to have a bake sale. To put on the bake sale you only spend 5% of the money you eventually raise for American Cancer Society, which is $71. What Pallotta did was attract sponsors, and come up with 350k as seed money. Within five years he had multiplied the 350k to $194 million, keeping his overhead at 40%. What do you think American Cancer Society would rather receive, $71 from a bake sale or $194 million from a breast cancer awareness walk? Because Pallotta “outsourced”, drawing money from various sponsors, he was able to generate a much amount to donate to whichever breast cancer foundation he chose. So the “true” cost of outsourcing for non-profit organizations is a larger impact on providing assistance for the needy.

Smith's prompts for specialization

          It appears to me as though Smith is actually advocating specialization throughout his piece, but to specify two places I will begin with the most obvious.  On the later half of page 71 and the earlier half of page 72, Smith uses the concept of a primitive tribe of men.  He discusses that "... a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other.  He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions, and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them."  This is simply stating that men can use their talents in specialized work to benefit themselves more greatly through purchase and barter than if they did other work (in which they have less talent), or tried to do all the work required to sustain them.  Furthermore, this man who exchanges his bows is not only helping himself, but also the hunters, therefore, by specializing, he is benefiting a much greater number than if he tried to sustain himself without help.  Smith then goes on and expands his example to other professions in his primitive community, such as hide tanner or carpenter, thereby saying  that a man can do much more good through specialization.
          A second example comes at the end of the work, on page 73, where smith is discussing that animals of separate "tribes" do not benefit each other.  Smith states, "Among men, on the contrary, the most dissimilar geniuses are of use to one another; the different produces of their respective talents, by the general disposition to truck, barter, and exchange, being brought, as it were, into a common stock, where every man may purchase whatever part of the produce of other men's talents he has occasion for."  Smith says here that if men specialize in their labor and do what they have talent in, it can all be brought together to a place where it can be purchased by anyone, and all can benefit from it.

Specialties

          Throughout the excerpt, Adam Smith pointed out that those who had specialties or talents benefit more than if they tried do something else. He continued and stated that if they continued with their abilities, the rest of their community will benefit from their abilities. This was similar to the economics side of capitalism, which is that everyone works to make themselves a living, and the more you work, the more you get. In this type of economy, people will often play to their strengths and work in jobs that involve their talents more often than their weaknesses.
One example he described was:
     "In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions, and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows and arrows grows to be his chief business, and he becomes a sort of armorer." (Smith 71)
     This described the process when a person is separated from the rest because of an unique talent that increased their value. An example in our lives is like how Megan excels at writing and takes good notes. She also has good work ethics and writes quickly. She aspires to be a reporter, and these skills will make her invaluable in the press.
Another example he presented was:
     "Many tribes of animals acknowledged to be all of the same species, derive from nature a much more remarkable distinction of genius than what, antecedent to custom and education, appears to take place among men. By nature a philosopher is not in genius and disposition half so different from a street porter, as a mastiff is from a greyhound. or a greyhound is from a spaniel, or this last from a shepherd's dog. Those different tribes of animals, however, though all of the same species, are of scarce any use to one another. the strength of the mastiff is not in the least supported either by the swiftness of the greyhound, or by the sagacity of the spaniel, or by the docility of the shepherd's dog. the effects of those different geniuses and talents, for want of the power of disposition to barter and exchange, cannot be brought into a common stock, and do not in the least contribute to the better accommodation and conveniency of the species."
     This is just reinforcing that those who play to their strengths benefit more than others. Hopefully writing a good blog is one of my strengths! See you all on Wednesday!

Miriam as a Symbol

It can be easily deduced that the character Miriam is a critical piece in Truman Capote's short story "Miriam." This little girl Miriam is not only a pivotal character of the story, but a symbol of the type of person the story's main character, Mrs. Miriam Miller, would like to be.  Miriam represents Mrs. Miller's desire to be spontaneous and exciting, which are things that her life has severely lacked since her husband's death.  She follows practically the same routine every day, until Miriam comes into the picture.  Miriam appears as a young girl at the movie theater, who, without her parents in sight, prompts Mrs. Miller to buy her a movie ticket.  This, plus the fact that Mrs. Miller is even in the movie theater at all, leads to a series of events that are completely out of whack with Mrs. Miller's routine, ordinary life.  In the end, it is safe to conclude that Miriam does not actually exist, but is a figment generated subconsciously by Mrs. Miller to help her escape from the drab, almost death-like state her life is in.  To further prove that Miriam is a symbol of Mrs. Miller's desires, it can be noted that they share a name.  Miriam is simply a younger, more exciting version of Mrs. Miller, who shows up to make things more interesting.  Mrs. Miller's subconscious chose a younger Miriam form because the conscious Mrs. Miller will follow it, knowing deep down that it is herself trying to lead her into a better life.  To elaborate further, Miriam is not only a symbol of Mrs. Miller's desires, but the symbol of them being fulfilled, as her continued presence in Mrs. Miller's life keeps her in chaos.  While chaos may not be exactly what Mrs. Miller expected, it is still an exciting change from her previous lifestyle.

Day 2 - Miriam / The Wealth of Nations

Homework:

1.    Blog on the symbol you picked in class for Miriam by Truman Capote.

a.    What is the actual symbol (list page number), and what is it symbolizing.    Your blog will appear in a Miriam presentation on Exhibition Night.   Please explain the background and appearance of the symbol completely, and then help us understand what this is symbolizing.

2.    Read Concerning the Division of Labor by Adam Smith twice

a.    Mark reasons why Smith encourages specialization.   Come prepared to discuss if you agree with his perspective or not, and why.   For countries that do not embrace a free market, why do you think they might disagree with Smith?

b.    We will be staying with this passage for two weeks.