I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion as to reject any offer proposed by wise men
Swift may be commenting on the monarchy and how the king disregards offers "proposed by wise men," as the king is the wisest of them all and has supreme power.
Infant’s Flesh
Interesting how Swift capitalizes "Infant's Flesh" here like it is the name of a brand.
fond of their wives during the time of their pregnancy as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, their sows when they are ready to farrow
Again, not sure about the customs at the time Swift wrote this, but I'm guessing the men already treated women as tools. Swift criticizes men's treatment of women by claiming women's current status is lower than that of cattle. However, by producing valuable offspring that can be sold, they can elevate their status.
tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the kingdom who have any refinement in taste
In other words, if you don't enjoy eating children you lack "refinement in taste." Swift pokes fun at how the wealthy are so caught up in refinement and maintaining their image that they would go along with absurd ideas.
The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to distress and help to pay their landlord’s rent, their corn and cattle being already seized
Swift's second reason seems closer to fact. The government or some other authoritative figure has pushed the poor to the brink. They have nothing left to sell but their children.
grievous an encumbrance
Swift makes fun of how the government sees the "aged, diseased, or maimed" as extreme burdens to society when the government is partially responsible for their condition. He also satirizes how the government just leaves these people to die.
it is not improbable that some scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice (although indeed very unjustly)
Not sure on the history of government help for poor children, but I'm thinking that the wealthy would oppose paying higher taxes to help them. The wealthy likely see these children as burdens to society that are destined for nothing. Swift defends his "modest" proposal, claiming that those who seek to censure it are in the wrong. Yet, if the government's disregard for the children is equivalent to letting them be eaten alive, why is it not seen as wrong to the same degree?
which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine
The comparisons between rearing children as food and rearing domesticated animals puts children just above animals. Perhaps Swift likens children to cattle to emphasize how the government dehumanizes the poor children, treating them as a burden to society. Actually, by treating children as a burden to society, they are put even below animals, as animals can still provide sustenance.
I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
Before this paragraph, Swift maintains a serious note. However, this paragraph is an obvious change of tone. His description of children as food appears to satirize the inability of his kingdom (British?) to provide for the poor children. Thus, he proposes his own absurd way to ridicule their incompetence.
not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a-crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.
Swift weighs the return on investment for rearing children, a practice still in place today when people consider whether or not to raise children.
Fun is a medicinal bath. The pleasure industry never fails to prescribe it
Fun is monetized from an early age. We unsuspectingly fall into the trap of advertisements on kids channels and beg parents to buy toys that we'll throw aside after a few days.
The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises.
Before, they talked about how the culture industry manufactures and determines what consumers want. Thus, do the consumers really mind if the culture industry cheats them out of what they initially promised if the consumer wasn't sure what they wanted in the first place?
Demand has not yet been replaced by simple obedience
Or is demand simply an illusion for simple obedience? How do Adorno and Horkmeimer deduce that this has yet to occur?
Picasso
This is sort of a tangent, but this reminded me of how there's a restaurant in Las Vegas that monetizes Picasso's fame. Their business revolves around fine dining paired with displays of Picasso's paintings.
whether at work or at leisure – which is akin to work
To keep up productivity and make it seem like the company is growing even when it's reached the maturity stage of slowed growth, business's will often push their employees to go above and beyond which then becomes the standard. So, if you don't go above and beyond, you're performing below the standard. Companies like Google are also increasing the amenities at work which almost makes it cultish. You eat a company sponsored dinner, you take your children to a company daycare, you play in a company's game room, etc.
The whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry.
I comprehend this "filter" as multiple layers that have amassed over the course of history. One layer can completely invert another, but yet they are all still culture.
classifying, organising, and labelling consumers
Consumers are dehumanized, demoted to mere numbers that support a business' clout.
The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry, or of the motion picture industry on the banks, is characteristic of the whole sphere, whose individual branches are themselves economically interwoven.
Those at the top like to stick together to amass power (money), gatekeeping wealth. Hierarchies are present in almost every facet of life, as mentioned here in industries and also general socioeconomic status. In a sense, government is itself an industry.
Beethoven symphony is crudely “adapted”
Classical music is not only popular in film sound-tracks, but also in advertisements. They juxtapose classical music, which is often seen as boring or outdated with new technology. They downgrade these pieces in order to elevate their products and make them seem revolutionary.
the theory of the Text can coincide only with a practice of writing.
Interactions with Text can come in many forms. Why only writing? I can respond to a reading just as effectively with a drawing or performance. Perhaps I have misunderstood the theory?
In fact, reading, in the sense of consuming, is not playing with the text.
What makes playing with the text superior to consumption (if it is)? The way Barthes phrases this proposition gives the feeling that consumption is not sufficient. What happens to those that were never taught to play or is the need to play innate when interacting with Texts?
“cultivated” reading is not structurally different fromreading on trains
Society's fall from the grace and luxury of our ancestors or just a natural progression of time? There's a sense of longing for the past and bringing the Text back.
The Text is linked to delectation, i.e., to pleasure without separation.
I find the 7th proposition more personal than the previous. I've always seen pleasure as an inherently personal sensation that varies between individuals. Is the distance experienced by Barthes a consequence of an inferiority complex?
but he does so, one might say, as a guest
This reminds me of a the Inkheart series written by Cornelia Funke. At its heart is the idea that the stories continue even after the author has written the last page. In the first book, the fictional author of Inkheart (a book in the book of the same name) but is subject to the same dangers as other characters. He is in no way treated as royalty.
boredom
The relationship between a reader and Text involves giving and taking while a work does not warrant further engagement. Similar to a one-sided conversation, when the reader's only role is to listen, nod, and awkwardly laugh with a joke they don't understand, the conversation will quickly stall. In this case, who's at fault? The reader for not engaging with the work or the work for not inspiring engagement?