1) In The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History, Robert Darnton explains that "ordinary people learn to be 'street smart'—and they can be as intelligent in their
fashion as philosophers. But instead of deriving logical propositions, they think
with things, or with anything else that their culture makes available to them, such
as stories or ceremonies." What example in Darnton's book illustrates the "street smart" of ordinary people in
junction with the following text from a contemporary philosopher?
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of unspoken, but constant and uniform
association, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate
this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to
a master among his neighbors and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because
it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things which nobody ever hears
of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular associations to lower the wages
of labor even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and
secrecy, until the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes
do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by
other people. Such associations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive
union of the workmen who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine
of their own accord to raise the price of their labor. Their usual justifications are, sometimes, the high price of foodstuff, sometimes the great profit which their
masters make by their work. But whether their unions be offensive or defensive,
they are always abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision,
they take always recourse to the loudest clamor, and sometimes to the most shocking
violence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the folly and extravagance
of desperate men, who must either starve or frighten their masters into an immediate
compliance with their demands. The masters upon these occasions are just as noisy and never
cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil authorities, and the rigorous
execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the
unions of servants, laborers, and journeymen" [Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
(1776)].
[STUDENT'S HANDWRITTEN ANSWER:] The ordinary people in a society simply do not have
access to the abundance of resources that higher echelons of society have. Because
of this, they do not receive a "true" education as men like philosophers do. But,
there is another kind of brain power known as "street smarts," and the ordinary man at
times made use of this cognitive strength as a source of power. In short, they used
tricks and devices, and basically their wits to get by -- and get revenge. An example
of this can be seen when labor is the issue. The rights of labor always opposes the
rights of owners, so a struggle develops between two sections of society -- one using
traditional power (industry) and the other street smarts (workers). Adam Smith exemplifies this in "The Wealth of Nations" and Robert Darnton does in "The Great Cat Massacre."
According to Smith, industry works to keep wages at a minimum, and they succeed at this much of the time because of their strength in unity and their abundant resources. But workers too form "unions" to fight this oppression, which is widely felt by them as a negative impact in their lives. The workers, according to Smith, will either react against abuses by the owners or they will instigate trouble themselves to get what they want. And they do so with, "the loudest clamor, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage" to frighten their masters. In essence, they will use what knowledge and power they have (streetwise) to overcome the resources of the owner.
Where Smith gives us the skeletal framework of how a worker will use his street intellect, Darnton gives us an example that fits this mold -- the massacre of numerous cats by a group of printshop workers. The complaints that these workers had were numerous, including being fired too much and the lack of the once praised journeyman/master arrangement that allured an ordinary person to become "educated" in a trade. These frustrations culminated in the hatred of cats, which the upper classes adored as pets, but interference by these cats through miaouing kept workers from getting enough sleep. To the workers, to unite in a great cat killing spree would be exactly following the text of Smith, taking recourse to the extreme. Using wit from the streets, they knew this protest for better labor rights would be seen by the masters as an attack on the upper class, but the upper class could not prove it enough to take action against the workers. So you have workers performing great atrocities to, as Smith put it, "frighten their masters." The workers wanted the masters to know that they were capable of fighting for their rights if necessary. The cats were a representation of the masters, who were declared guilty of poor labor practices. Street smart enough to know better than attack outright, they used social pressure to get what they wanted. Street intellect had won out over traditional education.
In conclusion, ordinary people were capable of getting by on the only education they had -- that from the streets. "The Great Cat Massacre" is an example of this, which follows a traditional course laid out by Adam Smith himself in "The Wealth of Nations." Ordinary men, when cornered, had the intellect to "scratch" back.
"Normally, individualism is equated with narcissism and egocentricity, a selfish desire to put one's personal convenience above the needs of the society as a whole, or those of subunits such as the kin or the family. The emergence in late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England of a different set of values, which placed the individual above the kin, the family, the society and even, in some eighteenth-century judicial pronouncements, the state, is therefore a very unusual phenomenon, which requires very careful demonstration and explanation" (pp. 151-2).How did John Locke and Adam Smith serve in this unique Western development? John Locke wrote the Two Treatises of Government (1690), of which the second treatise is the most famous. He also was the author of Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) and Some Thoughts on Education (1693). Adam Smith penned The Wealth of Nations in 1776.
[STUDENT'S HANDWRITTEN ANSWER:] For most of the history of mankind, the individual in society was not the dominant factor. Instead, importance came from the greatest numbers down. Society was in a state to ask total support from collective individuals, who worked more for the benefit of society as a whole, not for themselves. The individual had to think before he or she acted because they had to consider the outcome of their actions on everyone else. Duty for the individual lay not in himself, but in everyone else, such as family, lineage, and government. In short, the individual owed allegiance to all these groups, and to deviate from this mode of thought by acting in a selfish manner was totally unacceptable. But society, with the help of great thinkers, began to change. Two of the big promoters of change for the individual were John Locke and Adam Smith. Together, they worked to put the individual at the top echelon of society instead of the bottom.
John Locke was an upstream swimmer. The ideas that he promoted for the individual went totally against all modes of thought for his day. To him, the individual was the most important element of society, even coming before government. In his "Two Treatises of Government," Locke argued that an individual, with the assistance of other individuals, chose for themselves the government that they felt best suited, and that government ironically instead of accepting allegiance from the people, owed it to them instead. Government was a tool designed by individuals to protect the natural rights of an individual. The individual was in control. The idea that it was natural for an individual to assert his own liberty of life and property was a complete change of pace from the old way of thinking. To Locke, the fact that the individual indeed had natural rights meant that it was not selfish or egocentric for an individual to act this way. Locke also emphasized the rights of the individual in all levels of society, including children. He even believed that the youth in a society were individuals, born without sin, and having a claim on both education and love. Locke believed everyone owned these rights of individuality, and people believed him. This is why he helped to change completely the manner of thinking. Because of him, little by little the stream he was swimming against began to change course.
Adam Smith was also an innovative thinker who helped boost the single rights of one man to the forefront of society. First of all, he attacked the government too, just as Locke, but he attacked it from an economic perspective. Before Smith, the mercantilist view was dominant. This meant government had much control over business and the economy — even more than a working-inside-the-system individual. Smith developed in "The Wealth of Nations" a view of the individual as being the sole operator in the economy, leaving government out (laissez-faire) and letting the market follow natural law and balance itself. This new concept was known as capitalism, and in it the individual worked to benefit himself — to get rich. In a capitalistic view, this way of thinking was no longer seen as selfish. The individual could now strive in the world to make a success for himself — no strings attached. Smith also felt that the individual worker in business was responsible for creating wealth in a nation, because they were essential to making the whole thing work. He even claimed they could be innovators in the industry by mastering and bettering their individual tasks.
In conclusion, life in society for an individual went through many changes between the 1500s and the 1800s and the role of change was one that placed greater emphasis on each person as a separate entity. It was no longer selfish to act for one's own fulfillment. This view came about because of innovative thinkers like Locke and Smith, proving that if you have a big enough lever you can move the world.
[G. de Buffon (1707-1788)]
[P. Camper (1722-1789)]
[L.-J.-M. Daubenton (1716-1800)]
[Enlightenment Anthropology]
[Orang-Utang Graphics]
[18th-Century Concepts]
[17th-Century New France]
[Translations]
[Dr. Meijer's Résumé]
[Conference Papers]
[Publications List]
[Dr. Meijer's Book]
[Book Order Form]
[Nancy B. Jenison, M.D. (1876-1960)]
[Sitemap]
[Index]
[Home]
Miriam Claude Meijer, Ph.D.
02/16/05