Blog Switchover

Here are the blogs I wrote on a google document since August.

8/15/08

"All this said, how are we supposed to study society? Simmel acknowledges that serious problems of methodology face sociology - a product of the complex nature of the subject matter and the task of formal analysis that he proposes. In the end, though, he believes that the sociologist must employ intuitive procedures to express sociological relevance by means of examples. This involves a comparative analysis of specific occurrences (content) and the deductive analysis - or reconstruction - of the relations, connections, and dynamics that can be observed among facially disparate examples." <---- http://ssr1.uchicago.edu/PRELIMS/Theory/simmel.html

I initially gave the above-linked article only some attention, not thinking it was very relevant to the topic at hand; I regarded it as a semi-useful primer on Georg Simmel and his sociological theory, but not at all related to the topic I am currently studying–the zeitgeist of the period in history from 1890-1930. But then I encountered this paragraph. It confronts head-on the problem I've been facing in my studies, namely – "How are we supposed to study society?" Thankfully, the page provided an answer, which was not too far off from my own answer. Through use of inuitive study of specific examples and occurrences, we can study the nature of society. This is exciting for me, because it confirms that the research I am undertaking is, first of all, possible, and, second of all, that it is a valid topic to study. Granted, I am studying a past society, while Simmel was probably referring to a present society in his studies. However, the technique still applies. If I study specific examples–artistic output, historical anecdotes, essays–I can gain a handle on the Zeitgeist of the time.

8/18/08

This week I will study the years 1890-1930, during which time there was an allegedly a "crisis of spirit that effected all spheres of life – material, cultural and intellectual. The following quote informed my decision to study this period of history, and it forms the basis of most of my research this week:

"...and, above all, Simmel. This last relentlessly explored the notion that "modern man" endures a particularly alienating existence, characterized by a contradiction between, on the one hand, the need for personal development and spontaneity, and on the other, the existence of an "objective" culture that confronts the individual not as a work of man but as something autonomous, impersonal, and, in its vastness, deeply oppressive. Fourthly, the alienation theme (for this is what the notion of crisis here becomes) also made its appearance in the literature of the time. Think of Rilke's 'Notebook of Malte Laurid Brigge (1910), which depicts the poet's all but hopeless attempt to maintain his own "authentic" existence in the face of the anonymous reality of the city, and of Thomas Mann's various explorations of the gulf between art and life. "

I have collected a list of sources relating to this crisis. I plan to investigate these thoroughly in the coming week.

- Rilke - Notebook of Malte Laurids Brigge
- Freud - Studies on Hysteria
- Paul Valery - La Crise de l'esprit (The Crisis of Spirit, hopefully I'll be able to find an English translation...)
- Oswald Spengler - The Decline of the West
- Robert Wohl - The Generation of 1914
- Alan Wilde - Horizons of Assent. Modernism, Postmodernism, and the Ironic Imagination

8/19/08

Ah, another relaxing day in the library. I am continuing my study of the so-called Progressive era (1890-1930). Today I will look at historical incidents of this period and attempt to analyze them.

Retrospective on today's work: Well, I got side-tracked....but it was good side-tracked. I stumbled across a revelation that seems so obvious now that it hurts: I am studying the period of Modernism, and asking simply, Why? Why did art, literature, science, writing suddenly explode into catastrophic new dimensions? And, if I can answer the question why, then I can apply what I've learned to the times we live in today and perhaps arrive at some solid concsluions. The French critic Roland Barthes blamed the modern phenomenon on increased connectivity and communication in the 1850s, which led to destruction in conventions of art. If this is true, then what does that mean for us living in the digital age, when barriers are quickly dissolving and communication and connnectivity are at an all-time high? These are the type of questions I seek to answer

8/25/08

Interesting quote: "...the significance of life lies beyond beauty and ugliness, for its flux is governed not by any goal but merely by its own driving force." Another: "In the better cases, the passionate desire to articulate an authentic personal sense of life plays an important part, and the the conviction that it really is authentic appears to require the exclusion of anything pre-established or traditional – any permanent forms objectified independently of spontaneous creativity. For when personal life is channelled into such forms, it not only forfeits its uniqueness, it also runs the risk of squandering its vitality on something that is no longer alive."

This is sociologist Georg Simmel on Culture in 1914, during the heart of Modernism. He is identifying here the underlying motive of all intellectual movements of this period, and in doing so, explaining exactly why the Modern phenomenon was such an anomaly in history. If there can be a zeitgeist of the period of 1890-1930, it would seem that, give or take some, this is it. The modernist artists and intellectuals wanted expression in its rawest forms; they desired an absolution of all traditions that would hinder their creativity. How this relates to the average psychological profile, I have yet to figure out, but it is an important nugget of knowledge, and it will guide my studies for the next few days. I will continue to read now.

Assignment tomorrow: pg. 84 and on in Simmel on culture.

8/26/08

Well, I've started reading The Modern Mind by Peter Watson, a book that will probably be foundational for my research. It traces nearly all intellectual currents from the turn of the 20th century and on and describes and categorizes them. It also expounds a little bit on "postmodernism"–which makes up part two of my independent study, defining the zeitgeist of the times we live in today. Here is a relevant quotation I'm saving: "It is too soon to tell whether the sensibility that determines part 4 and is known as post-modernism represents as much of a break as some say. There are those who see it as simply an addendum to modernism, but in the sense in which it promises an era of post-western thought, and even post-scientific thought, (see pages 755-56), it may yet prove to be a far more radical break with the past. This is still to be resolved. If we are entering a postscientific age (and I for one am sceptical), then the new millenium will see as a radical a break as any that has occurred since Darwin produced the 'greatest idea, ever.'"

I would like to investigate this notion of a radical break, of a "post-scientific age", once I have wrapped up my studies on the Modern period (keep in mind, that 'modern period' refers to 1890-1930 in this context, not the times we live in today).

9/9/08

My oh my! It's been a little while since I've made an entry hasn't it? I feel like this class is the busiest period of my day for some reason. Anyhow, more developments on my research project. Moderism vs. Postmodernism. These terms are widely accepted and thrown around in academic settings, but what do they really mean? And where did they come from? Obviously there must have been some concrete evidence, that actually exists in reality, that causes some guy somewhere along the line to describe the time we live in as postmodern. And some have even gone so far as to call it postmodern. But what are the causes and the symptoms of this postmodern condition? The starting point for my independent study is to define Modernism, to identify the 'zeitgeist' of the modern period. By defining what it is to be modern, I can define what it is to be postmodern, and thereby define the times we live in today.

I plan to interview Mr. Reese on the above subject, because he seems intelligent and he teaches Modernism and postmodernism in his American literature class. It has only recently occurred to me that I could get in touch with a philosophy or sociology professor from Emory or Agnes Scott and perhaps keep up a correspondence. I think it may be beneficial to do look outside of Decatur High for expertise, so I may pursue that.

9/18/08

I know, I know, I really need to journal more often. The thing is, I am currently deeply embroiled in research, and I don't want to stop that momentum by pausing to do journals. At this point in time, it doesn't feel right to start trying to draw conclusions prematurely. I feel that I am on the verge of making some breakthroughs, but I need to continue studying this period of time. Next week I will plan to contact both Mr. Reese and someone from the philosophy department of Emory via email. I am making progress in The Modern Mind (thanks Mrs. Lee for this book!). I am past WW1. I plan to read as far as the American modernists, Hemingway, etc., and then move on from that book, perhaps into the future where the word postmodern begins to come up.

The bell just rang, though I'd love to write more...I'm planning to convert this to a blogger file so it's more accessible. See ya!