SumBlog1

The Parisian Henri de Saint-Simon saw France in a time when the people were rising up and questioning religion and the monarchy. Saint-Simon thought science was a way to help us understand social phenomena and human interaction and relationships. This, itself, was a pretty new concept since before this time people didn't really believe we had the power or authority to study ourselves. Although he understood its importance, Saint-Simon was critical of the status quo and the monarchy. In his hierarchy he put "new thinkers", scientists and entrepreneurs at the top.

This idea of giving merit to those who achieve is very interesting to me. If we were all on the same playing field in our level of the hierarchy - what determines achievement? We almost force people to move to the next level up by celebrating their successes. We are happy for them, that they have created something amazing or had an insightful idea; however, these triumphs push those above us and have some sort of control over the lower levels. Additionally, it makes me question: how do we choose to reward these people who've we decided to give merit? Perhaps, we show them more respect and seek them out for ideas and advice.

In this painting by Giovanni Pannini The French Ambassador to the Holy See Leaving St. Peter's Square (1757), we see people sharing thoughts and ideas and listening to one another. Even though there may be an intellectual hierarchy, it doesn't appear to dramatically affect the everyday encounters during this time.  I could look at this forever!

Now, we give athletes trophies and huge amounts of money, a diploma (paper) and a ceremonial cap and gown show academic achievement, but in France during the late 1700s and 1800s we weren't giving such physical prizes. These new thinkers were creating advancements in medicine and technology which were bettering people's lives. It appears mere acknowledgement and employment of these ideas was enough to separate the classes. By allowing them some extra freedom to expand their knowledge, we could, in turn, propel our lives forward with technology and enrich our daily conversations.

Here is a a painting done by Joseph Wright An Experiment on a Bird (1768). The image itself is powerful, but the idea behind the painting is just as provoking. The body language and expressions give way to the feelings: interest, disgust, thoughtfulness and curiosity. I'm still left with some questions to consider. Why are we giving so much more powerful to these "new thinkers"? Are there repercussions, or only advancements? How does this change the hierarchy for the common people at the time?