Reflection

In all honesty I got a little bored with our Messiah discussion. It seemed to become more about semantics than anything else. This may be a personal bias of mine, I don't really like the idea of Messiahs. It bothers me when oppressed peoples come to the conclusion that only a destined person with superhuman abilities is capable of saving them when, in fact, all they have is a collective action problem. A good story would be about how the freemen recognized their own potential, stopped waiting for the Lisan and overthrew the Harkonnens themselves.

On to Weber.

I was a little hesitant to admit this in my substantive piece, but I loved Weber's lecture. While it does get a little boring in the middle I thought it was perfectly designed to break the spirit of the idealist little students he was giving it to. Oh how I wish some well known politician who AU students adore would come to campus and give a similar speech. I may be putting my own spin on this, but the end of the lecture lays out a Philosophy that I have been preaching for a while now in contrast to Chris' "practice vs. theory" I believe it is better described as, Idealism vs. Realism.

Here's a clip of the West Wing to explain. Here Leo acts with an ethic of responsibility while the President an ethic of conviction. The President is forced to either Kill a murderer or follow the law.



It's about considering the result of what any given decision will have and recognizing that the more ethical more moral decision is not the one that is "right" or "just" in the immediate sense, but in the long run.

Trapped in the Elevator

No joke, I was actually stuck in an elevator tonight while I was the RA on duty. I then thought, that maybe Paul from Dune was in a similar situation. In a sense he was trapped in the destiny of the jihad. Granted, Public Safety came to my rescue 45 minutes later, but no one was there to open the doors for Paul to be set free. Lady Jessica is like the bump in the elevator that you instinctively know is not right. I think it would have been more interesting for Dune to have the jihad not occur, if I never got out of the elevator the 7th floor of Hughes would never had the wonderful show of 2 RDs, 2 RAs, and 2 Public Safety Officers come to the rescue of the RA on duty. But then again, the elevator is like the jihad in that no matter what I tried to do from the inside I couldn't get the doors to open. Apparently the backup power generator was broken along with the emergency release handle to open the doors from the inside. I also forgot to mention that there wasn't an escape door, which I think it's illegal but whatever. I guess the point that I'm trying to get here is that Paul doesn't necessarily have the full responsibility for the jihad occurring. It wasn't my fault that the elevator stopped working, or is it? The only way to get out/avoid the jihad is to get outside help, which Paul didn't have. The outside help he thought would help just ended up making the jihad occur against his wishes.

Reflections on Class Discussion 2/19

Here is the lovely chart Kaitlin did for use in class typed up, regarding if Paul is the Messiah:
Pro

• Existing things are being fulfilled
• Messiahs can be compatible with intention to fulfill
• pg 477 "that person has been produced"
• Fremen acknowledge him as "the" messiah
• triggered a religious crusade, or better yet, the occasion for it
• killed in the name of good
• depends on the culture + social norms
• the messiah defines the cultural norm -> Paul changes traditions
• controls power and is followable - people need this
• not die, maintain peak
• "the" Founding Father - GW
• Lost Weber: Messiah as a Vocation
• Claim -> Acknowledgment -> Followers -> Makes stuff possible

Con

• Admitted he's just a seed -> pg 199
• He knew the role and used it to manipulate religion
• could be "a" but not "the" messiah
• could we have a "bad" messiah
• Paul has killed
• He will eventually die, messiahs come back
• if you die, you're a martyr

Here are things from the Weber discussion that I picked up:

• Weber might have wanted to destroy all sense of idealism/pragmatism
• This is how it is, for better or worse
• Use the necessary means
• Karl Rove is a good example of what Weber was getting to
• Bashing idealist view, not condoning real politik
• Ethics of conviction are dangerous
• Worse thing to do is do something and then have retaliation
• Theory is not practice, practice is not theory
  

As for my reflections on the class, I felt stronger about the idea that the book was written from the standpoint that Paul is the messiah. Dune leaves much out about who Paul is, other than the messiah everyone has been waiting for. Just like the saying history goes to the victor. Other than that I don't feel like anything else needs to be added.

Max Weber

I have to agree with several other posts which said there was nothing particularly new in Weber's lecture, but I did find several elements of it interesting. What stood out most to me was his discussion of the importance of journalism in politics. It often seems in studying history that the power of journalism is something which is only understood retrospectively, but it is clear here that Weber is well aware of the power of the media over politics. This may be a misperception on my part, after all the Spanish-American war clearly revealed the power of media, and it seems unlikely that people were unaware of the machinations of newspapermen, but in the era of 24 hour news networks it seems like a particularly apt observation. Also apt, and mostly ironic, in light of CNN and Fox News, is Weber's discussion of the necessary genius of good journalism. I couldn't help but wonder what he would have to say about the journalistic influence on the current election.

Also, looking at this article as it relates to Dune, it struck me that Paul's personas of Muad'Dib and Duke Atredies capture all of the types of power which Weber discusses. Muad'Dib's power is based almost entirely on "the authority of the extraordinary." He has the absolute devotion of his followers solely because they believed in him. His authority as the Duke, however, came through the "authority of eternal yesterday" and through "legality." It is interesting that he chose to claim authority when given the chance based on his authority as the Duke, cementing it with a marriage (again authority from inheritance and legality.) In his mind, that was the more legitimate source of power. However, it was Muad'Dib who inspired his followers to Jihad, and Muad'Dib who was powerful enough to regain the 'rightful' place for the Duke. I think this leads to some interesting questions about the nature and relative strength of the types of authority Weber discusses, both with regards to Dune and with regards to the state of the world today.

Weber Substantive

First off, I will say it was a bit ironic that I started reading it after doing my German homework. Seeing how there are little tidbits about the definition of politik, Beruf, and rufen. But that just might be me enjoying what little use I get out of my German language skills. My German professor had a good laugh when I showed her those translation notes.

I didn't find much that I thought was shocking/new. I felt Weber rehashed topics and ideas that are already out there. I took Modernist Explosion last Spring, in which one of the readings was by Weber's wife Marianne, and I was exposed to the thoughts/movements in Germany from 1900-1935. That is most likely the reason I was left unimpressed, and felt that I had heard this before. Granted, I can understand Weber's background, he died right after the Weimar Republic was founded and missed all the lovely movements and chaos that ensued.

Barack Muad'dib

Seems some people are convinced Obama is the Messiah Seems interesting both in a Dune and a Weber perspective.
"When religion and politics ride the same cart, when that cart is driven by a living holy man, nothing can stand in their path."

Weber Substinative

I found the Weber lecture quite hard to find (I finally got it out of the library reserve desk), and especially interesting when considered either in the context of all of my Politician friends (some who live for and some who live from politics) or in the context of Dune.

By far my favorite part of the reading came at the end (at least in the context of Dune). As a political leader Paul could see the consequences of his actions, leading to an interesting dilemma within Weber's ethical paradox between ethics of responsibility and ethics of conviction. Ultimately, Paul's actions lead to a lot of death, but Paul does everything he can to avoid this. Is he, in fact, an ethically perfect Character?

Politics as a Vocation

Well, I think this was a better piece of social science to read than Manifest Destiny it didn't seem as textbooky. While reading the beginning and end of Weber's "Politics as a Vocation," my mind kept jumping back to Dune. At the very beginning, he mentions charisma being a justification for domination for a prophet -- immediately bells start ringing and Paul Muad'dib comes to mind. So I substituted Paul for the word leader wherever possible and see if it worked with the Duniverse. The middle of the text began to feel like a history course as Weber went through parliaments and boss politics and the various roles of "professional" politicians. In his examples, Weber kept putting down America even more so than England and France (or it seemed that way to me). But this could have been the context of when this lecture was given (1919). I think it would have been really interesting to hear more from Weber about the history that followed his death. What would he have thought of Stalin? Of the three justifications of domination Weber gives, Stalin doesn't seem to fit into any of them ('traditional', 'charismatic', or 'legal'). But that was just a side thought of mine. I'm sure we'll focus plenty on Paul and his leadership qualities in class.

Reflection on Dune

In appendix three Herbert blows everyone's mind away by implying that there is some grander scheme controlling the Bene Gesserit. After the initial shock of "did he just write that?" it made sense that Herbert would have some unknown group playing puppetmaster to the B.G. Throughout Dune he mentions "feints within feints within feints" or "plans within plans within plans" a couple of times and manipulation pops up every now and then so it's not out of left field. I think what is so shocking to readers is that it is the Bene Gesserit who are the ones being manipulated. When Gurney or a few people are manipulated, it is understandable. But for all of the B.G., who pride themselves on their acute senses and knowledge, to be unaware of this manipulation makes it even more shocking. I wish that Herbert had revealed this grander scheme instead of leaving us all in suspense.

This may seem like a conspiracy theory, but what if one or more of the members of this grander scheme was the implied writer. Who else could cover the multiple points of view? At first I thought maybe Alia in all her Reverend-Mother knowledge, but she wouldn't be able to get Hawat and Yueh's perspective. It's written with such detail that it seems fresh, but it couldn't be right after the Arrakis Affair given that Princess Irulan wrote practically a billion books that are quoted. Speaking of which, she had way too much time on her hands. But I found it interesting that she never refers to Paul as Paul or Duke or Emperor. It's always Muad'dib. She seems to have as much faith in Muad'dib as the Fremen. Why else would she focus all of her attention on him? I think it demonstrates what side of Paul showed her when he had to interact with her. Usul was reserved for Chani, Duke for his subjects, and Muad'dib for the followers and Fremen. In regards to the implied reader, I have no idea. It doesn't seem to adhere to only one group.