I left a passive aggressive note at a friend’s house after I stayed the night. My friend, his girlfriend, another friend, and I would all get together regularly to stay the night at Friend 1’s house (Q). Q refused to drink tap water, so he had multiple bottles of water in packs that he would buy. I was notorious for always taking one when I would come over.

First off, it was just one bottle, so it shouldn’t have been that big of deal, and secondly, I would always refill it in the tap since I grew up drinking tap water. Eventually, as more of a gag gift than anything, I decided to buy Q a huge pack of bottled water that more than made up for the water I’d taken from him over the times I’d stayed.

In one week, they informed me they’d finished it all. Next time I went to stay over, in the morning when no one was up save for me, I left a joking note by the sink that talked about the glories of tap water, the fact that it saved more plastic, tasted better, and was all around no different from any other water. Still the same H2O as any other.

When Q and the rest found it we had a good laugh, but I still feel that I had a valid point.

Gregg opens the article by setting up an example given in the show Six Feet Under, where a character finds herself in tough situation after breaking up with her boyfriend. Once a creative art student, she dropped out of college and found herself in the position of a temp in an office job. The author takes this and relates it to aspects of American life, such as office work, the shrinking middle class, and the increase in interest of white-collar work. More and more people are working in office, doing jobs that are less meaningful but they are trick into connecting with,  and such instances are made fun of in the U.K. and U.S. version of The Office. 

Other ideals are referenced in this article, such as a move to the “knowledge economy,” as Gregg calls it, and certain websites where the main currency is humor or human sympathy, and relates this to human change. 

There were interesting Marxist tones to Gregg’s article, such as talks of “class wars” between those with the high-paying desk jobs and those with lower-paying manual labor jobs. This was a main point as Gregg mentioned the economy is moving away from blue-collar, manual work. Also, Gregg’s point of workers needing to feel emotional attachment to their work and avoid alienation echoed largely of Marx in its focused on worker’s health and freedom.

In my opinion, the most important question to be asked is one of pragmatism versus that of morality. Certain things may work, but are they right? Take the idea of high taxes for example. There is no doubt that the basic idea of higher taxes will lead to more income for the government (but as to how likely the government is to spend that money responsibly is another question entirely), but do people owe more in taxes simply for making more? The idea of one who is rich owing more to society simply for being rich is seen as wrong by some, with the absolutist anarcho-capitalist wing or economic theory going as far to claim that “taxation is theft.” Neo-Marxist, postmodernist, and socialist thinkers believe that it is immoral for people to be that wealthy and not contribute what they are able.

The division in morality is twisted and contorted into meaning almost whatever the speaker intends for it. At this point, it is nearly impossible to argue economically from an objectively moral level with the question hanging over the heads of every philosopher and economist asking: is there even such thing as objective morality?

McMillan Cottom’s article “The Education Gospel” begins with an example about the author working out a way to pay for a technical college with a student named Jason. Jason was highly religious person with extreme test anxiety, coming from a rather poor family he had no one to cosign his loan if he defaulted on them. He only had an aunt who was elderly and on social security, which meant that a loan may not be the best for financially or health wise.

After coming to this realization, Cottom get talked to by his boss about what they actually do at their business. They are meant to close deals, not to act as a therapy clinic of provide advice. This made Cottom question the morality of the job. In the midst of this doubt, she decided to talk to a military veteran, Michael, about what Michael was advising his own kids to do. Michael’s oldest decided not to go to the Technical College they worked out, and Michael did not question this, as he did want his won son actually attend the college they worked at.

All of this was preceding the 2008 recession, and people failing to pay back their credit card loans. This connected to the artifact that I will be analyzing for the first project. This gave me an interesting personal connection to this piece of work, as many before the 2008 recession saw it coming and realized that to profit off of it they would need to bet against the market. If the people that saw it coming profited, they would only do well on the backs of people losing their jobs and homes.

Pierre Bourdieu begins the article talking about how capital is inseparable from the socialized world we live in today, and goes on to describe a short theoretical world. The world, which the author essentially fancies as the libertarian’s fantasy, sees almost everything privatized and no nepotistic or inherited aspects. Of course, this is not the world we live in today, but this would be if capital was completely taken out of the socialization aspects.

Bourdieu then goes on to explain that economic theory is the basis for which we bargain with capital, the ultimate goal typically being maximization of profit. Essentially, economic theory is a way that the dominant class stays dominant, as they use theory as an “icy water” of sorts. 

Bourdieu gives three distinct forms of capital, moving it to more of a cultural idea. He calls these categories embodied, objectified, and institutionalized states of capital. This next break into a type of capital is what he calls social capital, defining it to be certain resources available to those that are part of a group. 

While reading this article, Bourdieu’s theory had slight connections to John Rawls whether intentionally or otherwise (while taking slight and subtle jabs at it). Bourdieu’s writing bore these connections mostly in the beginning, as he wrote extensively about life being a “lottery” of sorts. Rawlsian theory saw much of this same thinking, with emphasis being placed on humans wishing for equality above all else.

Zelizer began by giving an interesting hypothetical, fast-forwarding to the year 2096. She gave the run-down, saying that most if not all money has taken an electronic form. She says that there has been a monetary value placed on most things, from spousal care, to children’s behavior, to strongly performing employees. However, the employer takes the employee out to dinner or offers them some lavish reward rather than actually giving them money. 

The author questions the social ties we have to money, and predicted the reader’s response to things such as money for sexual favors and children needing to pay back their college tuition if it was paid for by parents. The social reaction to these scenarios is quite gut-wrenching, yet most of these things exist already. Prostitution is a business, some parents require their children to pay them back if the parents were responsible for paying the students college tuition, and there is most definitely electronic money now more than ever.

The way we think of money and financial transactions is highly socialized. Is there an objective standard to what money is and does, or is it simply a social construct? Zelizer certainly gives reasons why is may very well actually be the latter, pointing out how it is fungible, and can be given in the form of gifts. She also points out that the entire system of economics that we use today is simply built on a way that works for people, a very subjective system rather than an objective one.

When looking to rhetorically analyze the movie Knives Out, one would need to look at both the textual and contextual pieces of the of the film. The textual part (that is to say, the substance) can be analyzed by taking into account the relationships between characters in the movie. Many of the characters are portrayed as greedy, mainly the people in the family. Their interactions, words, and individual motivations must be looked at.

As for the context, it would be interesting to analyze the filmmakers lives, where they were, and beliefs about inheritance and money.

A piece of culture I have recently encountered is the movie Knives Out. In the movie, the patriarch of a rich family passed away, and his children and their spouses were squabbling over his inheritance. One of his grandchildren decides to take rather violent means attempting to get more than his share of the inheritance, leading a twisted story full of murder, mystery, and drama.