Well, I think you are right and your reply is thoughtful. There is also of course the sexist divide. My daughter was very precocious in math as a child but when she got to college her math and science abilities were discouraged in very subtle ways. Even in grad school (Johns Hopkins) she ran up against the anti-women attitude among the faculty. She did obtain a PhD in physics but even now she encounters sexist discrimination, not so much among fellow scientists but among non-scientists. On the other side, men are often looked upon as sissified if they go into the performing or visual arts. This kind of prejudice, totally unfounded in physiology or intelligence, is very widespread in America. I think it is a residue of earlier strongly held values rooted in religious customs and beliefs. Too bad. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, November 25, 2010 2:17:31 PM Subject: Re: "This study examines the process of commercialization of ... etc. On Nov 25, 2010, at 2:20 PM, William Conger wrote: > Yes. We still denigrate the sciences and the arts, each for different reasons. Math is denigrated by schemes to make it look like kids are competent. The arts are denigrated because they foster creativity. I don't think that's the case, William. I think the various arts and the sciences are denigrated (1) as a defense mechanism by those who are not accomplished in them; and (2) as an inadvertent residue of the dissociation of sensibilities (T.S. Eliot's term) that set in after the Renaissance. Nowadays, it's popular to refer to "right-brained" and "left-brained" "intelligences"--as if the two hemispheres could be separated and as if intelligence could be disaggregated into separate enclaves of competencies--and use other, similar expressions ("from the heart instead of the head," "speaking as an artist [writer, mathematician]," etc.) that . Moreover, understanding or comprehending any kind of mastery requires attention, concentration, and an appreciation of the history of the endeavor. Externalized skills, e.g., dance, athletics, masonry and carpentry, are easier to perceive (they're already visible) and are easier for the viewer to associate with because the viewer can correlate his own physical experience with the dancer or carpenter. For the most part, that cannot be done with mental work (art, writing, composing, etc.). The viewer's correlative in the artist-doer is not visible. All that is left is the result of the mental work, and much of the creativity or insight is only implicit. The proposition that there are unseen animators of art and intellectual endeavors has led to a form or expectation of mysticism and mystery surrounding the production of creative intellectual work. This goes back to Pythagoras and the association of "math, music, and mysticism," such as in the music of the spheres, which were derived from mathematical proportions, and from the mysticism of the esoteric practices of Pythagoras and other teachers. The 20/21st century period is awash in its own variations on mystical powers, from the "mystery cults" from the east (i.e., Christianity) to Surrealism and its espousal of other forces, to the near-cult-like awe in the presence of computers, arcane science, back-to-nature proponents, art-without-limit boosterism, etc. Fervent devotees of art and other endeavors are often called "enthusiasts," a word that came from the Greek roots meaning "possessed by a god," i.e., motivated by an unseen power to perform certain things. I don't think this society denigrates creativity: The prevailing attitudes misunderstand creativity and infantilize it, more than anything else. As far as watering down mathematics to make kids look competent, that is the result of widespread antipathy toward competition (besides athletic) and the inevitable ranking of intellectual work. If Johnny scores less than Sammy and if Sally scores less than Mary, it's unfair. Etc. You know the arguments. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
