Warning: include(/home/macdonald/deirdremccloskey.com/templates/menu_bv.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/.nudge/macdonald/deirdremccloskey.com/articles/bt/ch4.php on line 8

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/macdonald/deirdremccloskey.com/templates/menu_bv.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/php5/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/.nudge/macdonald/deirdremccloskey.com/articles/bt/ch4.php on line 8
next chapter »

Not the mechanical "class position determined ideas" of the "rise of the bourgeoisie" notion. Acknowledge its force, for what it's worth. But rising in numbers or not, bourgeois values "rose." The rhetoric change.

Davidoff and Hall here.

A chapter or two showing the B character even of aristocratic talk in Britain in the age of the man's modern suit (use Hollander). A good case, if not the hardest, would be the Navy. Then a parallel to the Shakespeare chapter, using a literary source intensively, e.g., bourgeois novels, as characteristic literary production of early 19th century as drama was of late 16th. Macaulay would be of course exactly right. Daniel Deronda? Probably too late. Certainly Austen, as hard case that nonetheless makes it. Contrast with Spain---or even France (Balzac)---at the time. (Hold the anti-bourgeois themes of Disraeli, Dickens, Flaubert, et alii until Vol 3.)

Arjo Klamer's way of looking, independently discovered by Fiske [and people he and Arjo cite]:

Logic of Exchange             Logic of the state
"Not" chps. on S and D           Nationalism, planning
Logic of the social: this is it,
not the others.
Logic of Connection
The family, religion

Each sphere has its institutions. The market has the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, with its hand-signals and commotion. Joke: . . . . The state has its bureaucracies in serried rows. Joke: Dept of Agric. The family has its traditions of the two-week camping trip to the north woods, or Sinterklas. Joke: An Australian child goes to court for relief from his parents, who always beat him. The judge assigns the child to the English cricket team, "Because they can't beat anyone." The social has its institutionalized rules of easy conversing among strangers. Joke. . . .

Each sphere has, in other words, as the rhetoricians put it, "special topics," that is, certain ways of talking, certain scripts that would sound strange if applied to another sphere. If a family follows strictly the rules of easy conversing among strangers, and never gets down to cases, we worry, seeing it as a tragedy or a joke. If a bureaucracy uses the language of the market, we are startled--NNN as telephone operator in the days of AT&T's monopoly saying to an angry customer, "If you don't like our service, go to our competitor." If a club member in the realm of the social demand a special quid pro quo for taking his painful turn on the governing board, we are annoyed.

But the places in common--literally, the commonplaces, the loci communes, the koinoi topoi---are linguistic. The lone institution that all four spheres share is language. All we have in common is language, not our separate tongues after Babel but the faculty of speech. Language as institution. In fact, all other institutions are analogies to language, when they are not violent.

Sharing language means sharing metaphors and stories. The effective constraint on human behavior is not grammatical. [Prove this.] It is "pragmatic," in the technical sense used in linguistics.

So, the metaphor of GOVERNMENT IS A FAMILY brings notions of caring into politics. The "family" of the United States of America, admittedly, contains 300 millions souls instead of two or six or a dozen. But nonetheless (the metaphor asserts) we should treat other Americans as family: being family means you have to take him in. You can celebrate or criticize the metaphor, but the point here is that family-talk spills over into government-talk. In a rhetoric common in 1593 in England, THE KING IS A FATHER dominated political discourse. Thus the Anglican divine Richard Hooker wrote, "To fathers within their private families Nature hath given a supreme power." But then he sharply criticizes the metaphor, on ground similar to the criticism of a 300-million person family.

Over a whole grand multitude [such as 300 million souls] having no such dependency upon any one [in as much as it does not have a single natural father]. . . impossible is it that any should have complete lawful power, but by consent of men, or immediate appointment of God; because not having the natural superiority of fathers, their power must needs be either usurped . . . or, if lawful, then either . . . consented unto by them. . . or else given extraordinarily from God.

Hooker 1593, p. 191, italics supplied.

The phrase "by consent of men, or immediate appointment of God" states the gist of the political struggle to come in 17th-century England, and later elsewhere. Are kings by God anointed, or do they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?

So likewise the story of expertise in government . . . . spills into the market. Obsession with Bernanke and Omaha guy. "Someone must be an expert," which the economist denies. Jerry Nordquist story.

The spillage of special topics into the common places has consequences. If you really do think and speak of the Pope as "the Holy Father," you are less likely to protest at innovations sponsored by him such as clerical celibacy [DATE] or papal infallibility [DATE]. Father knows best. To be sure, your position as a nun may lead you to use the father metaphor. The position, not the language, may be the common cause of the figure of speech and of attitudes towards action. A federal judge is required by her position to speak to the court in a certain way, regardless of her interior convictions about the law. But metaphors constrain thought, too, independent of your pleasure in the matter. If every other nun around you uses the Holy Father talk, you will come to see him that way. If you think and speak of the Pope instead as merely a highly successful clerical politician, then all your disdain or admiration for politicians spills into your actions in ecclesiastical polity. Like some nuns of my acquaintance, you will for example work against church policy in the position of women, the political rights of the poor, the . . . .

[example of story spilling badly from one to another.]