Prebendal Post-bender

"The sociology of (most) early governments were typified by what Weber terms 'prebendal' (web207) organizations, staffed by members of the dominant class who effectively 'owned' their offices and treated them as personal property. This inefficient method of internal management, combined with social and political instability, and often nurtured by a metamorphic leap into modernization, would eventually lead many countries to enforce new modes of operation: namely, bureaucracy. The early processes of state-making are thoroughly examined by such writers as Skocpol, Scott and Silberman. This paper will utilize their work and explain the underlying causes and goals of capacity building via Weber, Soskice, Clemens, and DiMaggio. Their writings emphasize how the modern economic era, that is, the bulk of the twentieth-century and the early twenty-first, has seen a move by states towards legitimization and rationalization. State-making, then, and statecraft, are involved with stability and legibility, fashioning the machinery of nations and their citizens in such a manner as to expedite progress while maintaining control. The development of bureaucracy is key to this goal. This paper will discuss the ignorance of premodern and prebendal governments as they relate to their citizens and how, to assert, maintain, and ensure future control, bureaucracy is the inevitable choice. From DiMaggio and Soskice we will examine how statecraft thus becomes bound by constraint to obey the rules laid down--furthering legitimacy and what Scott terms 'legibility' (scott2) by diminishing emotional interruption to the civic process."

Yep. That's my rough intro for my poli-soc essay on state-making and bureaucracy. For God's sake...

Anyway, really enjoy hearing about Corn's adventures in Germany. Very cool, very cozy. But, as an un-cozy little tidbit, I just spent about half an hour NOT writing my essay but instead writing a long (for an email) treatise to a girl I will, for the sake of anonymity, call Persephone, about why I can't emotionally or romantically connect to her and the reason is this: at first I thought she was too nice, then I thought she was too submissive, then I realized what it was. I felt, in first meeting her (and I am seldom wrong when it comes to first aura-impressions) that there was an inner element of anger to her personality. And, see, anger is important to me. Conflict is important to me. I can't have a woman who constantly praises me, tells me nothing but good things and saccharine garbage. Relationships, from what I've known, tend to collapse because they can no longer support. Less bullshit means less weight. Less weight to bear, or endure. But this girl, Persephone, would always treat me so well, too nicely, when we were together.

I need a person to relate to me honestly. Otherwise, in all frankness, I'd rather we just smiled and went on our merry ways. I need to have someone tell me no, tell me I'm wrong, otherwise how else can I know they're really thinking, or being honest. Even if you agree with something you're different enough to have a disparate perspective. And I sensed this inner anger to her that I wanted at the forefront. It's not just that I like 'em feisty, I like them to be fighters. Because you can't ever just let things happen. You need to be willing to go down with the ship. So maybe she was scared I'd turn it away, who knows... Guess we'll see where this leads. Me and Persephone.

Spent July 4th reading and highlighting over one hundred pages and about six different professors. Here's what I learned day one at college and have yet to be proven wrong: college is the most insular place I've ever been. At least going to UCI I could get in the car and drive off with you crazy motherfuckers...knew there was at least ANOTHER world at there that, oh, I don't know, actually existed, as opposed to on paper.

But que sera, sera. Back to political sociology.

Summer time, and the living is sleazy,
P.