PERSONAL NOTE: Giving Tree

"Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind [...]; it is out selfishness which overrates it. [...] I would not subtract any thing from the praise that is due to philanthropy, but merely demand justice for all who be their lives and works are a blessing to mankind. I do not value cheifly a man's uprightness and benevolence, which are, as it were, his stem and leaves. Those plants of whose greenless withered we make herb tea for the sick, serve but a humble use, and are most employed by quacks. I want the flower and fruit of a man; that some fragrance be wafted over him to me, and some ripeness flavor our intercourse. His goodness must not be a partial and transitory act, but a constant superfluity, which costs him nothing and of which he is unconscious. this is a charity that hides a multitude of sins. the philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own cast-of griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy. we should impart our courage, and not our despair, our health and ease, and not our disease, and take care that this does not spread by contagion."

- Henry David Thoreau, Walden

PERSONAL NOTE: "MATERIALS SELF-FASHIONING: PLASTIC PLACES"

Jackson shows that suburban housing for middle class families served as evidence between the distinctions of gemeinschaft(domestic relations) and gesellscaft ( communal relations). Technology and innovations of the car, steam railway and water system created suburbanization within the United States. Along with the Manifest Destiny to further push the American populations and immigrants from the congested cities West-ward into the unconquered frontiers of continent, the political environment of post-World War II in the US served as a background and foundation for middle class Americans to participate in consumerism through purchasing suburban homes, kitchen appliances.

Suburbia offered middle class families a chance to own a house which was not possible in the 18th century. Many of the European families who immigrated to the United States remained cultural connected to their European heritages. The dream for an individual to privately own a home remained very important. In Europe, many owned homes remained owned under the same family for years and often times many centuries. Thus many people were subjected to living in the cities in small-sized apartments, with little or no space to relax in away from the urban environment. Levitt standardized housing emerged in the east coast and served as a “socialist” housing which created custom-made, standardized, affordable housing for middle class citizens. The houses were easily constructed and made relatively quickly and much importantly were spacious and wide enough for a nuclear-family to reside in. Within the houses, there were planned floor plans, kitchen design and a convenient dishwasher and dryer provided. More importantly, there were open spaces such as green lawns that were available with the houses.

These green lawns offered large open spaces (privately owned) which was influenced by the European Romantic Movement in the early 19th century, emphasizing the outdoors. The lawn offered families a barrier from their daily hectic work lives and interactions with the gesellscaft, which “separated the household from threats and temptations of the city” (58). Hence, the availability to retreat to a relaxed private home life appealed to many Americans after the War. And consequently, the purchase of homes and consumerism created an upsurge in support of American technological innovations purchased and used in the homes.

Columina reveals in her book that the technological innovations, architecture, and organization and work management found within the smaller infrastructures of society reveal the changes world system shifting towards capitalism and the US as a favorable model of modernism. She shows that there is a redefinition of the architect and architectural design by the war effort and the recycling of military technocrats, materials and attitudes to the reorganization of post war space and lifestyle.

World War II brought new innovations in modern warfare, which included the use of logistics, gathering of information for intelligence on the battlefields, and the management of large scale scientific projects. In order to maintain the United State’s status as one of the World Power ( in opposition to USSR), the U.S. military relied on the growth of industry and academia, to further create new innovations and further boost the American economy and population. As a result, the U.S. army applied their innovations and the skills of their personnel in a smaller, domestic scale, which benefited the economic system of capitalism and liberalism.

Psychologists who were employed in the war used the aptitude tests used on army recruits in the American schools to test the intelligence. This brought organizational theory to raising, training and preparing students to enter the workforce, and further created a rapid rationalization of selection and advancement of individuals into their occupations. During the wartime period, the organization of the army played a pivotal role in organizing the post-war office environment and space within the domestic sphere. As a result, this creates and a developed work ethnic to complete duties and tasks more efficiently.

The Cockpit created the body to become mechanized and systemized. The use of simulations prepared army personnel or showed the army whether the individual was adept to conduct and fly an airplane. After the war, the cockpit simulations were used to boost the American aviation sector, when commercial aviation was used to bring passengers and tourists to their desired destinations. Consequently, in the following decades, airline deregulation in the US market and the European markets occurred, creating a decrease in prices and a leveling of commercial airline prices, as they fairly competed against one another in the free market.

All-in-all, we see that consumerism in the domestic market through buying homes and domestic products support the liberalism, capitalistic system. However, the system itself instills modes of efficiency through applying its military innovations towards the larger scale of society, through logistics through aptitude testing, management of work, and technologies to aid domestic work. Consequently, the economic system is engrained within society itself and acts as a mobilizing agent in affecting the architectural designs of society itself, as now architect serves as a “socialist” agent providing sustenance and conscious safety to the nation as a whole.

PERSONAL NOTE: "Equality and Liberty and its Casual Effects on the Formation of Governments"

Locke’s conceptions of liberty and equality are perceived to be leading factors to the development of the three branches of government. Locke describes that an individual’s equality is given up in order to establish a political society by consent. And the judge is created who will arbitrate and end conflicts with one another, but he must not be above the law. On the other hand, Hobbes states that liberty and equality are in the “State of Nature”, and because of this, both concepts of liberty and equality create conflicts, or “State of Warre”. In order to end conflicts, Hobbes uses a similar approach like Locke, which is for the majority of people to submit under contractual agreement to a Sovereign. However, in Hobbes case, he argues that the Sovereign must be monarchical and absolute, making his power unlimited and without restraint. Whereas, in Locke’s case, he advocates for a democratic sovereign-- who divides his power into three branches of government. In Locke’s case, the sovereign’s power are limited. Although Locke and Hobbes’ modes of desired government are different, they both are existent under the belief that they are in that position to fulfill the Commonwealth’s prosperity and good.

Locke’s equality is the state of nature there is no superior being over an individual. State of nature is a state of perfect freedom. Although men have freedom, they are still bounded by its laws. In the Laws of Natures, men will order their actions and dispose their disputes with one other because they will realize that they are equal with one another (Locke 269). Thus, Locke states that equality is the basis of social and ethical obligations with one another. And from that, essentially, “equality” is a concept that every individual is a common ethical creature and that there is no hierarchy above or amongst them (270). Locke shows that equality leads to conflict because there is higher authority to manage the conflicts between people. Without the presence of a common superior, people live with one another peacefully unless there is an event that creates them to be defensive and self-preserve themselves. Everybody is equal in nature, and because of that each individual, in the state of nature, has executive power to create laws which can apply universally to everybody. Because a person has the power to create their own laws and to reinforce them, they will take law in their own hands and create harms on others in order to protect themselves and their property. Equality ends when all the people in a “state of nature” create a political society (sovereignty of the people) by consent between everybody. People have the desire of having a common judge and authority, who ends the conflict between people and resort out the arbitrations of the past wrongs.

Locke’s usage of an individual’s “liberty” is utilized to describe a harmful behavior that can come out if there is “equality”. He states that the use of liberty must coincide with the Laws of Nature. The Laws of Nature has constraints which create the state of nature to be a form of government in which everybody, within the state of nature, is obliged to obey these laws. With the sense of “equality”, individuals must realize that they must not use their liberty in a harmful way towards another individual’s health, harmony and private property. Because of this reason, Locke reveals a person doesn’t possess the “liberty” to do what he pleases. Thus, individuals who are equal amongst one another must not execute their liberty of license and cause others harm. He states again “though this be state of liberty, it is not a state of license, men have an uncontrollable state of liberty but he does not have the liberty to destroy himself and others”( 85). If an individual executes their liberty in a wrongful way, this creates War.

War is another way to describe what Lock calls “conflict” and can only be remediated by the presence of a government and Executive power. In society, people with conflicts can appear to the authority for resolutions of their disputes. For Locke, individuals will establish a government, based on majority rule, by placing their consent to a central male figure. Consent is when an individual gives up and transfers their natural freedom for a greater cause (209). By giving their consent, they are able to enter a society (Commonwealth). And as a member of the Commonwealth, they are giving protection of their properties in the forms of their “lives, liberty, and estates” “Consent” is a central to the establishment of a political society and governments. Governments start from a Political Society. And a Political Society, is formed when groups of different individuals congregate and willingly transfer their natural rights and themselves to one person. However, the “Sovereign”, who is the person given the power from the individuals’ transfer of natural rights, is only the Executive part of the 3 branches of government. The other branches, the Legislative and Judicial are also created and form the foundation for a civil society and end of War (281).

The limitation of the executive branch by Locke is that he must not take all the power from the other two branches (358-360). The commands of an Executive may be opposed when he becomes a tyrant. A tyrant is like a monarch who “exercises the power beyond right” and also breaks the laws and acts on his behalf. When the Executive has absolute power of the legislative and judicial branch, there is no more government. The power of an executive is to protect the Commonwealth’s property and well being, and create legislation to govern the Commonwealth’s behavior. The Commonwealth places checks on the Executive power to make sure that he is no usurping all the power from the other two branches. The executive power must not take all the power. If this happens the executive has monarchical power (199-202). Absolute monarchy places no common authority over all. The absolute monarch has all the executive power, legislative power and can be exempted from or above the laws of the common wealth. The monarchy can impinge of people’s property and welfare without fear of retribution. The people lack the comfort, protection, and incentive to contribute to the good of the common wealth.

The sovereigns power can be disposed by the Commonwealth, by impeaching him and replacing him with another Executive head. If the government isn’t adequate it is a violation of the laws of nature and justice. In this case, people who all have natural rights have the right to fight against the government because the government itself is in a state of nature. Thus, the monarch is above law and will not abide to the rules.

Now I will talk about Hobbes. Hobbes states that human beings in their natural state are unstable and will do anything in their power to preserve themselves. They make their own subjective declarations on what is good and bad behavior. He states that liberty and equality are naturally presence in the “state of nature” and that these two concept create conflict between people, because people are self-preserving and fighting with one another for resources (Hobbes 183).

For Hobbes, natural liberty is the natural right to all things, and, again, this creates conflict. In a state of war, we have the right to all things, “natural liberty” where we have to be constantly on guard(189). This is a problem when creating a society, or a unified group of individuals.

In Hobbes, individuals are equal in the “state of nature”, and this creates problems between individuals. The conflicts between individuals can only be mediated by a Sovereign by contract, who preserves the protection and lives of his people. Because individuals have equal status in nature, they have the same equal measures to get resources and food. In the state of nature, “equality” is measure by the equal opportunities each individual has to “satiate their appetites” by obtaining their basic sustenance of food and water(Hobbes 183). Thus, conflict arises with “equality” because it places individuals in a calculating thought due to the limited availability of resources. This “conflict”, which is termed by Hobbes as a “state of warre”, occurs when people are in competition with one another to self-preserve themselves, by means of harming one another in order to safe-guard their resources. Individuals have the “liberty” to self-preserve themselves by battling others for resources. Thus a Sovereign and Commonwealth must be established to provide peace and security to all peoples ( 277).

A sovereign is created when there is a transferring of rights by contract to one person, which limits an individual to act their liberties on one another (220). This 2nd Fundamental Law of Nature allows for justice to be created in society. And for the sovereign to enforce the contract to ensure the safety and justice of his people (277). The Fundamental Laws of Nature allows for humans to escape the State of Nature, and to create social unity. The contract becomes a representative of the natural people encompassing and uniting their multitude of differences by condensing their wills into one person, known as the sovereign.

Not only is the sovereign is the instigator of the contract, but he also has the absolute power. The sovereign makes sure that people obey the rules of the contract. And thus a Commonwealth is established, where the multitudes of people can escape nature by the sovereign’s guarantee of giving peace and providing defense to the Commonwealth (241) The sovereign has absolute power like a monarchy However the Sovereign has his own rules which are above the laws of the Commonwealth. And Hobbes argues that Monarchy is the best way to rule(247) . Hobbes states that fear with the Leviathan is better than fear with people in the state of nature because people have security peace and preservation of life. The Sovereign has the powers of contemporary executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. He is the ultimate judge, lawyer, and lawmaker for all the people under the Commonwealth. Thus, he remains the absolute power with the divine right next to God.

Another limitation of the Sovereign’s power is the presence of liberty itself (267). The sovereign suppresses liberty because it is can create harm to the Sovereign’s power. Liberty can create disobedience and breaking of contracts, he states that liberty is a manmade concept. The Sovereign’s powers can be limited when the commonwealth is a “defection procreation” in which the sovereign absolute power. Individuals within the Commonwealth, if they have not given up their individual liberties are in jeopardy of usurping the Sovereigns power by dividing it up. Hence, the sovereign is not subject to the laws he creates. And the subjects who have taken a contractual agreement with the Sovereign must remain loyal to him and abide to all the rules that he makes.

Thus in both arguments, Hobbes and Locke have established a form of authority and government in which the majority of people must submit their individual liberties and equalities to the higher authority. By doing so, they are given the guarantee that they are able to preserve themselves, others, and their own properties. However both cases are subjective to the historical events of their time, as for Hobbes he advocated for an absolute monarchical power, with no limits on the acts of impunity and power that he held. For Locke, he advocated a three branch government, which would separate the executive, legislative, and judicial duties of each branch of government from one another. Locke did not advocate a monarchical government, but instead pushed for a democratic form of government. Thus, based on the concepts of equality and liberty, Locke wished to preserve these concepts by which the government would preserve these properties in the form of “life, liberty, and estates”.  

Works Citied

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. London, UK: Penguin Group, 1981.

Locke, John. Ed. Peter Laslett. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge P, 1960.