disclaimer: Before I get going on this thing I want to go ahead and admit that I am not strong with politics. it is difficult for me to understand those subtle differences that define a party. I cannot keep them all straight in my head. If I get something wrong, I apologize in advance. If anyone would like to explain all of these different parties to me, please feel free)
The role that religion plays in the "modernized" society is actually an interesting and slightly ironic story. Something that I think is important to remember is the religious/secular struggle that had been going on for decades, even centuries before this conflict. For hundreds of years the Church was the ultimate authority on all issues. They held “the keys to the Kingdom” so to speak. You see the “German” (yes I know it did not exist yet, but go with me) secular world start to try to assert is power as early as the 11th century with the struggle between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor. Embedded deeply into the European psyche is this rebellious attitude toward papal authority. You see it pan out multiple times over the years (remember the Reformation?)
I think that it is this mindset that helped push the mistrust and censorship of the Catholic community. After Italian Unification, the power of the Papacy was further diminished. During this time a particularly ambitious Pope was trying to regain secular power (for example, by announcing the Infallibility of the Church). Of course in the now distinctly Protestant, unified Germany there would be an outcry. In fact, I think that all of Protestant Europe was infuriated. The leaders, the aristocracy and ruling family (and Bismark), feared the influence that the Church might try to reassert. The rise of Church authority meant the decline of secular influence. After all, hadn’t they JUST put the Papacy in their place? Hadn’t Church and State already been (mostly) separated?
It is also pretty amusing how Bismark fought for and achieved universal male suffrage but that ended up being detrimental to his plans later on. Much of the lower working classes were indeed Catholic. By giving them the power to vote, they could vote for the Conservative (Catholic leaning) politicians.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Sew Modern?
One of the things that I am struggling to understand is how the innovation of the sewing machine ended up causing the extinction of the guild system. I find this to be ironic. Not to mention utterly absurd. I feel that the guilds had some things moving against them, but that if they treated this invention like the gift it was, they would have been successful. Perhaps they would have even thrived.
Let me ponder the potential reasons why a tailor would refuse to embrace the sewing machine:
1. Pride: Oh deadly sin that causes so much folly! Tailors were the "masters" of their craft. aspiring young ones sought out the teaching of these learned men who knew every aspect of their craft. They were masters, however, of sewing by hand rather than machine. After all, this was how it had been done for years. Hand-stitch was pure, perfect art. How could you sully it with a machine? Well interestingly enough, the machine could create neater stitches than any human being, but then it wouldnt have that hand made feel. and gracious me, you would have far too much extra time on your hands! you might even be able to produce more. gasp! I think that tailors were too concerned with preserving their "craft" rather than their business. which is nice, kinda like a diet, in that its a pretty ideal that would never work in practice. after all , sewing machine + plenty of work > (is greater than) no sewing machine + being outsourced to an inferior entity.
2. Pride: yes its the only reason besides commercial suicide that I can come up with (sorry im not more creative). Being a "sewing" machine that makes that strenuous task more pleasant (hah.), it seems that the sewing machine took on a distinctly feminine vibe. Again, it was pride that would keep a male from embracing this "woman helper". Goodness gracious me. Having a job to put food on your table is infinitely than watching your children starve. Or starving yourself. The market for the wealthy who could afford the quality hand stitched clothing was not big enough for every tailor in Germany. Im sorry, some of them should have gotten off their high horse and learned how to use the sewing machine. Besides, masculinity/femininity is merely a matter of perception. By making it a tool of the male tailors trade rather than a female seamstress, the sewing machine would have become an inherently masculine object.
Tailors had all the tools to save their profession. They already had a market that they were familiar with and customers who were familiar with them. They already knew the ins and outs of trade: what cloth to buy, when to buy it, who to buy from, where to sell...etc... And they had the upper had when it came to quality. An experienced tailor who knew how to produce faster with a sewing machine was going to outsell a housewife trying to earn a little extra. The market became polluted with inferior work made from inferior cloth. (the machines were so expensive to buy and maintain that the women were forced to work nearly 24/7 to make ends meet. not a recipe for good work. they also probably had to buy inferior cloth because it was cheaper). As a result of these things, I have concluded that the tailors made an unfortunate decision in not adapting to the changing world which caused them to become extinct.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Fall from Grace
One of the most interesting parts of the Priscilla Robertson article that I found (and wished had been elaborated on more) was the influence of King Ludwig's mistress, Lola Montez. " At Munich in 1848", wrote Priscilla, " things were different, partly because Bavaria was Catholic and partly because of the role of th kings mistress, Lola Montez." I find this to be quite an alluring line. Who was this woman? How did she influence Germany to this extent? What was the people's reaction? I just had to snoop.
I have always found the role of kings favourite to be fascinating. To be favoutie you had to be more than a pretty face. You had to have cunning, wit, charm. These were women not content with their traditional role in life and were willing to risk their reputation (and in some cases their salvation) to better themselves and their own. It wasnt just money and jewels and gowns. It was power, influence and in the case of Anne Boleyn, a crown. I find it frustrating that people fall into the trap of dismissing women as useless during this time. Women, while lacking a direct path to influence, were able to create their own power. It was a different kind of power, but not one less weak than their male counterparts. Indeed, Sarah Churchill, Duchess Marlborough, helped her friend the Princess Anne to become Queen. Many in London joked that it was Queen Sarah who ruled them rather than Anne so great was her influence. Barbara Villiers, Lady Castlemaine remained high in the kings favor not for her beauty alone, but her daring imperiousness. Her will was never crossed.The ingenius ways in which these illustrious women were able to exert their power thus (obviously) intrigues me to no end.
To return to Eliza Rosanna Gilbert, alias Lola Montez, I believe that she held the power of many of these same women. Her ability to seduce the king not only in body but also in mind altered the course of German history. Ms. Robertson describes the trouble Lola stirred up toward the end of her career. For her actions she was exiled for her adopted home. Gracious what mischief had she wrought to warrant such a punishment?!
I think that the people, expecially the middle classes as described by Shorter, feared Lola. She embodied the immorality that they feared was taking over their land. She was a shockingly wild woman. She was not just a mistress to the king (adulteress!) but she had been previously divorced. And she was an Irishwoman! Foreigners are forever stirring up trouble. Holding the precarious place of kings woman, she did nothing to endear herself to the people (other than the students). She did not improve her ways and sought to further her own very liberal political agenda. Lola also isolated herself from any sympathy she may have had from the aristocracy. She was able to convince the king to naturalize her and give her the title of Countess. Members of the aristocracy were appalled. How could this woman now be apart of their ranks?
A key mistake of Lola's was to distance herself from the people and not care what anyone thought about her. She alienated any allies she may have had and further distanced herself from those who could save her. In the end a king can only be in power as long as the people let him be. She was part of the reason he fell out of favor with them. After the REvolutions of 1848 Lola was forced to flee and he to abdicate his throne. All in all a dismal ending for them both.
I have always found the role of kings favourite to be fascinating. To be favoutie you had to be more than a pretty face. You had to have cunning, wit, charm. These were women not content with their traditional role in life and were willing to risk their reputation (and in some cases their salvation) to better themselves and their own. It wasnt just money and jewels and gowns. It was power, influence and in the case of Anne Boleyn, a crown. I find it frustrating that people fall into the trap of dismissing women as useless during this time. Women, while lacking a direct path to influence, were able to create their own power. It was a different kind of power, but not one less weak than their male counterparts. Indeed, Sarah Churchill, Duchess Marlborough, helped her friend the Princess Anne to become Queen. Many in London joked that it was Queen Sarah who ruled them rather than Anne so great was her influence. Barbara Villiers, Lady Castlemaine remained high in the kings favor not for her beauty alone, but her daring imperiousness. Her will was never crossed.The ingenius ways in which these illustrious women were able to exert their power thus (obviously) intrigues me to no end.
To return to Eliza Rosanna Gilbert, alias Lola Montez, I believe that she held the power of many of these same women. Her ability to seduce the king not only in body but also in mind altered the course of German history. Ms. Robertson describes the trouble Lola stirred up toward the end of her career. For her actions she was exiled for her adopted home. Gracious what mischief had she wrought to warrant such a punishment?!
I think that the people, expecially the middle classes as described by Shorter, feared Lola. She embodied the immorality that they feared was taking over their land. She was a shockingly wild woman. She was not just a mistress to the king (adulteress!) but she had been previously divorced. And she was an Irishwoman! Foreigners are forever stirring up trouble. Holding the precarious place of kings woman, she did nothing to endear herself to the people (other than the students). She did not improve her ways and sought to further her own very liberal political agenda. Lola also isolated herself from any sympathy she may have had from the aristocracy. She was able to convince the king to naturalize her and give her the title of Countess. Members of the aristocracy were appalled. How could this woman now be apart of their ranks?
A key mistake of Lola's was to distance herself from the people and not care what anyone thought about her. She alienated any allies she may have had and further distanced herself from those who could save her. In the end a king can only be in power as long as the people let him be. She was part of the reason he fell out of favor with them. After the REvolutions of 1848 Lola was forced to flee and he to abdicate his throne. All in all a dismal ending for them both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
