So I started Persuasion by Jane Austin about 3 days ago, but since I had to study for my exam (on the economic history of sweden) I couldn't really indulge until yesterday, when I spent from 2 to 7 pm reading and then finished it this morning while doing laundry. If you have not read it already, I highly recommend it. I will not ruin the ending or anything in this entry, but it evokes some thoughts on romance so I will allow myself to ponder my reaction here. I hope you find it "agreeable." Reading austin always makes one desire a most illustrious and graceful rhetoric, preferably with a poignant british accent. (sooo excited about england/scotland!)
Often in life the things we have to wait for are more rewarding than those we don't. Granted some things are inherently good, and no amount of speed or delay will change that they are so. Yet sometimes it is the waiting period that makes the end result so much more valuable. I don't think it is good for anyone to always have what they want, as soon as they want it. Modern technology has sped up the pace of life so much that perhaps we expect all our desires to be met instantaneously, but I don't think that is a best possible outcome. Something is certainly gained in waiting.
For example, I love Christmas. Perhaps even more than the day, I love the season preceeding it. The idea of advent, living in anticipation of Christ's return to earth, surely agrees with me in that something is gained by our waiting for Christ's return, and while we wait, looking forward to it and perservering through the troubles of this life. I can enjoy December 25th much more if I have been living in anticipation since at least Thanksgiving. I used to remove a link in the red and green construction paper chain each day. I hate it when holidays sneak up on me. Something is lost.
I started by saying I would talk about romance, but I think you've already made the connection. The first thing Corinthians 13 says about love is that it is patient. Another word for patience, long-suffering, has always made me pause. "Long" and "suffering": I don't know anyone who likes long suffering. If we must suffer, we want it to be over as quickly as possible. In persuasion, Anne has been "suffering" for 8 years when we first meet her as a character. Longing for someone she loves but can't be with, believing him lost forever, possibly married to another. She talks a lot about constancy. It seems to me both the gift and the curse of strong feelings that we don't get over them quickly. Yet another good reason for marriage to be forever. Hearts which cleave to each other and become one are not meant to be parted.
Still I maintain that a romance that endures trials, separations, and difficulties is much the better for it. I agree with Mrs. Smith (a friend of Anne's) that our true characters are revealed in the painful and awful sitations rather than the sunny day. And of course, anything which we have long waited for gains even more value because of the wait. In all my grown years of coming and going from home, I find that I am most happy to see my family, our pets, and that lovely grey colonial on the day I arrive from a long separation. I can appreciate them more after feeling their absence.
One song that always makes me reflect is The Wait by Built to Spill. You should go listen to it because the music really adds a lot but here are the lyrics:
You wait/ You wait/ You wait for summer, Then you wait for rain/ You wait/ You wait/ You wait for darkness then you wait for day/ Yeah, you wait
You wait/ You wait/And she said patience, patience, darling/ Patience, patience, it will come
You wait/ You wait/ You wait for August, Then you wait for May/ You wait/ You wait/ You wait to get up, Then you wait to play/ You wait
You wait/ You wait for someone that'll make the waiting worth the wait
You wait/You wait/ You wait
I don't know exactly why I put the whole song in except that I think it rings so true. Perhaps another aspect of waiting, patience, and long-suffering that should be discussed is what we do in the meantime. If we don't know how to enjoy the days going by in anticipation, we won't be truly able to enjoy the event/person/etc. that we've been waiting all this time for. As soon as one thing arrives, we'll start longing for something else! It's so characteristic of our nature, and daily contentment is not. I spent most of my younger years believing that my life would finally "start" in college. Then there is my tendancy even now to think that my life can't have abundance until I'm married, and so in some aspects I'm waiting for my life to "start" then.
I guess what this song reminds me of is the need to be content everyday even as we wait. We are not guaranteed a tomorrow, and while planning for the future is wise, it is also wise to be thankful for all our present circumstances, if for no other reason than that God is in control and is working all things together for our good.
And now I should really go to bed. I recommend both Persuasion and The Idiot (which I just finished reading as well). I also read Candide (Voltaire) at my corridormate's urging, which is satirical and sobering. It's a bit unrelated to this entry here but perhaps I'll discuss it in a future post. So be content and wait for someone who will make the waiting worth the wait.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
thoughts on the welfare state
I've been learning a lot about Sweden's welfare state, both in and out of the classroom. In my first class here we discussed liberal egalitarianism (made famous by rawls and expanded upon by dworkin) which explains the need for a welfare state on a theoretical basis which considers the moral equality of individuals as paramount. This line of thinking recognizes that there are inherent inequalities between people (that they don't deserve) and thus desires to equalize positions, allowing inequity only when it benefits the least well off. Perhaps at a theoretical level this seems right, but putting it into practice requires a society which does not believe that individuals have a considerable amount of self-ownership. Liberal egalitariansim seems to require the valuing of others in the community on an equal level with yourself and immediate family while at the same time promoting individuals and individual rights as supreme. This almost seems a contradiction. The individualistic western culture with which liberalism has historically been associated seems to make the imposition of a welfare state a difficult task.
In the States we don't usually think of our country as being a welfare state, but to some degree it certainly is. Granted you can go from riches to rags and end up on the streets, but there are unemployment transfers and government sponsored programs to keep you from going hungry and get you back on your feet, as long as you want to get back to work. The government provides education and subsidizes higher education and healthcare for many who can't afford them. We seem to take it for granted that a modern state provides basic services to its population but this was not always the case, nor is it true everywhere today.
Let's go back to the reasons for the welfare state. I've always thought that governments provide basic services like education because it is in the best interest of the state to have an educated population. Certainly countries have and will continue to compete for places of power in the global community and that requires a certain level of competancy among laborers (at least in the modern context). The Swedish welfare state takes it further, they provide free education all the way through (including masters and Ph.D's), generous retirement benefits, gender-equalizing policies such as shared maternity/paternity leave paid for by the government, free healthcare (like the rest of europe), etc. The sentiment here is "we're all equal so why shouldn't we all have the same opportunities?"
I think it really comes down to values. In the states people are always talking about "hard work" while here the buzz word seems to be "equality". I've always taken it for granted that inequity is inherent in the world and thus some people will have to work harder than others to have "the good life." I guess I've never questioned the justice of such a thought. I used to whine to my dad that someone got more than me- he would simply reply, "michelle, life's not fair." Perhaps that is why the swedish culture and liberal egalitarianism seem so strange to me. Is it unjust for some to have more than others? Since when did justice mean an equal distribution? For some people, the two seem to be equivical. Is this a cultural sense of entitlement? Am I wrong to think that God gives to each a certain lot, and it's what we do with what we're given (talents, opportunities, resources) by which we are measured?
So all these thoughts are rolling around in my brain whilest I'm also pondering economic development. Previously I have considered my reason for being involved in development more along the lines of compassion for the poor than giving them their due. Do I think it's right and just that a few hundred families own most of the arable land in South America and the landless farmers are often employed at close to slave wages? Certainly not. There is plenty of injustice based on distribution. But this is where I get stuck. I do think that the huge tracks of land sitting unused by rich landowners should be redistributed to the people without land, but I'm not sure if I consider such an action an act of mercy and love like Christ told us to act, or as a requirement of justice because each person has a moral right to an equal share. So now you see that this entry is really just me trying to figure out what I think.
Back in the 1970's, the swedish welfare state was much more built up and regulated than it is today (the economic crisis of the 90's brought a lot of deregulation). The majority of the population was within one of 4 national labor unions and these unions basically sat down with employers and made deals while the government watched and gave its blessing. The main thrust of this policy was 'wage solidarity' which meant "equal pay for equal work"- even between companies and in somewhat different industries. This resulted in the majority of the population having very similar incomes and the floor and ceiling effect- with government money transfers, no one could drop below a certain level and with a progressive tax scheme that dramatically taxed away extra income after a certain point. This is why Sweden has one of the lowest Gini coeffiecints (which measures inequality) in the world. The system also focused on preventitive measures and proactive government intervention which is less costly than recovery and crisis management. This was one argument that the welfare state could propel development rather than stifle it.
The Swedes seem more relaxed about their work. On the news the other night they were interviewing people in the debate to change the workday from 8 to 6 hours a day. The woman they were interviewing was saying how nice it was for her to have 2 more hours a day at home with her family since her company had switched. I can't really imagine America instituting a 6 hour work day, so that working over 30 hours a week would mean overtime. Yet it's a nice thought. Certainly all those worried that China is going to pass us as a world power wouldn't like what that would do to GDP. It definitely seems like there are less adult Swedes working themselves to death, though family values seem to be weaker here (that's an entry for another day).
Well thanks for reading to this point, I know that was probably just a lot of incoherent rambling. I'm curious to hear what people think about a "just distribution" so leave a comment if you like. Being a brunette is great, I feel like I have a whole new wardrobe. My corridor is feeling more like a family everday. I guess I do a lot of "real" cooking compared to some of the others because Alexander told me today I'm like the corridor "wife". He said he wouldn't mind if I had some food on the table for him when he got home lol. All that probably because today I tried to cook a whole chicken and it looked all fancy. Tasted pretty good too. Okay well I should really go back to learning about Sweden's economic history and reading up on the world development reports for my economic development class. I can't believe it's March 18th!
In the States we don't usually think of our country as being a welfare state, but to some degree it certainly is. Granted you can go from riches to rags and end up on the streets, but there are unemployment transfers and government sponsored programs to keep you from going hungry and get you back on your feet, as long as you want to get back to work. The government provides education and subsidizes higher education and healthcare for many who can't afford them. We seem to take it for granted that a modern state provides basic services to its population but this was not always the case, nor is it true everywhere today.
Let's go back to the reasons for the welfare state. I've always thought that governments provide basic services like education because it is in the best interest of the state to have an educated population. Certainly countries have and will continue to compete for places of power in the global community and that requires a certain level of competancy among laborers (at least in the modern context). The Swedish welfare state takes it further, they provide free education all the way through (including masters and Ph.D's), generous retirement benefits, gender-equalizing policies such as shared maternity/paternity leave paid for by the government, free healthcare (like the rest of europe), etc. The sentiment here is "we're all equal so why shouldn't we all have the same opportunities?"
I think it really comes down to values. In the states people are always talking about "hard work" while here the buzz word seems to be "equality". I've always taken it for granted that inequity is inherent in the world and thus some people will have to work harder than others to have "the good life." I guess I've never questioned the justice of such a thought. I used to whine to my dad that someone got more than me- he would simply reply, "michelle, life's not fair." Perhaps that is why the swedish culture and liberal egalitarianism seem so strange to me. Is it unjust for some to have more than others? Since when did justice mean an equal distribution? For some people, the two seem to be equivical. Is this a cultural sense of entitlement? Am I wrong to think that God gives to each a certain lot, and it's what we do with what we're given (talents, opportunities, resources) by which we are measured?
So all these thoughts are rolling around in my brain whilest I'm also pondering economic development. Previously I have considered my reason for being involved in development more along the lines of compassion for the poor than giving them their due. Do I think it's right and just that a few hundred families own most of the arable land in South America and the landless farmers are often employed at close to slave wages? Certainly not. There is plenty of injustice based on distribution. But this is where I get stuck. I do think that the huge tracks of land sitting unused by rich landowners should be redistributed to the people without land, but I'm not sure if I consider such an action an act of mercy and love like Christ told us to act, or as a requirement of justice because each person has a moral right to an equal share. So now you see that this entry is really just me trying to figure out what I think.
Back in the 1970's, the swedish welfare state was much more built up and regulated than it is today (the economic crisis of the 90's brought a lot of deregulation). The majority of the population was within one of 4 national labor unions and these unions basically sat down with employers and made deals while the government watched and gave its blessing. The main thrust of this policy was 'wage solidarity' which meant "equal pay for equal work"- even between companies and in somewhat different industries. This resulted in the majority of the population having very similar incomes and the floor and ceiling effect- with government money transfers, no one could drop below a certain level and with a progressive tax scheme that dramatically taxed away extra income after a certain point. This is why Sweden has one of the lowest Gini coeffiecints (which measures inequality) in the world. The system also focused on preventitive measures and proactive government intervention which is less costly than recovery and crisis management. This was one argument that the welfare state could propel development rather than stifle it.
The Swedes seem more relaxed about their work. On the news the other night they were interviewing people in the debate to change the workday from 8 to 6 hours a day. The woman they were interviewing was saying how nice it was for her to have 2 more hours a day at home with her family since her company had switched. I can't really imagine America instituting a 6 hour work day, so that working over 30 hours a week would mean overtime. Yet it's a nice thought. Certainly all those worried that China is going to pass us as a world power wouldn't like what that would do to GDP. It definitely seems like there are less adult Swedes working themselves to death, though family values seem to be weaker here (that's an entry for another day).
Well thanks for reading to this point, I know that was probably just a lot of incoherent rambling. I'm curious to hear what people think about a "just distribution" so leave a comment if you like. Being a brunette is great, I feel like I have a whole new wardrobe. My corridor is feeling more like a family everday. I guess I do a lot of "real" cooking compared to some of the others because Alexander told me today I'm like the corridor "wife". He said he wouldn't mind if I had some food on the table for him when he got home lol. All that probably because today I tried to cook a whole chicken and it looked all fancy. Tasted pretty good too. Okay well I should really go back to learning about Sweden's economic history and reading up on the world development reports for my economic development class. I can't believe it's March 18th!
Saturday, March 8, 2008
taking the plunge
I dyed my hair dark brown. I think I like it. I'll miss my natural hair color because it is rather unique, but I figure now is as good a time as any to try something a little different (perhaps quite different). here are some recent photos:
Eating pancakes with my corridormates. Texas and I sort of had a bake off, a friendly one of course.
Some corridormates and Kayla hanging out in our kitchen. From left to right: Kayla, Ali, Howard, Jonathan, and Texas.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)