Brian, the book reviewers you quote seem to take a pretty dim view of the 12th Century and the way it treated women. It may not have been quite like that. Many historians refer to it as "an awakening" and a time of an increasing secularization of the western world, a period of good climate, good crops and the discovery or rediscovery of Greek and Arab scholarship. It was the time of the "grammarians" and "dialecticians" who traveled from town to town, teaching subjects such as grammar, rhetoric and dialectics. Among these was one Peter Abelard, considered by some to have been the foremost intellect of his time, and his tragic romantic involvement, Heloise, a highly educated woman. There were several important lay social movements, both male (e.g. Beghards) and female (e.g. Beguines) and all kinds of questioning of the established dogma and order of things - e.g. Meister Ekhard (just a little later), the Albgensians and the Waldensians. The ferment continued well into the 13th Century, when the Pope finally decided to put a stop to it in 1277 by issuing the "219 Condemnations", which layed it out on where the church stood on the matter of faith versus reason. If you wanted openness and reason, you could not have it in the Church. Even that didn't stop it. What seems to have done so was the pure nastiness of the 14th Century, a time of miserable harvests, famines, and of course the Black Death.
I'd suggest that if some of the important trends at work during the 12th Century had continued, we would have had a reformation and renaissance much earlier, and a very different role for women in society and academia than prevailed during the ensuing centuries. Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 ----- Original Message ----- From: "mcandreb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian McAndrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Not ideological (was More crap again) Hi Harry, I sense you really care about this stuff that Shotter is writing about. I think you realize what is at stake - everything. Your emporer reference is perfect. However the emperor must be the most powerful 'way' shaping our lives presently. And for the last 150 years, in our part of the world, that 'way' is western science. David Noble's book 'A World Without Women' takes this type of mindset back many more centuries. And the child exclaiming that the emperor is naked is Wittgenstein. >From Kirkus Reviews Noble (History of Science and Technology/York Univ., Toronto; Forces of Production, 1984, etc.) challenges the commonly held assumption that modern science developed in opposition to an authoritarian Church, claiming instead that the celibate, male- dominated Catholic tradition provided both support and inspiration for the scientific tradition that would virtually supplant it--a provocative thesis backed by a painstakingly detailed history. Christianity originated as a potentially egalitarian religion, Noble says--but almost from the beginning, he explains, women were forced to struggle against political and cultural forces aimed at pushing them out of the spiritual mainstream and into the home. Though occasional early heretical movements supporting spiritual unity between the sexes--as well as the undeniable power of a wealthy, female, medieval elite--exerted some counterforce to the Church's generally anti-female development, the 12th century saw the virtual end of fully empowered female spiritual counselors and a great emphasis on male clerical celibacy. It was this male- dominated, misogynistic Church, then, that established the European colleges from which modern science sprang--colleges in which the pursuit of knowledge was considered a sacred act, scholars were treated as a kind of monk, celibacy was encouraged, and women were categorically excluded. These origins have led to today's curiously anomalous scientific priesthood in which, Noble says, women continue to be discriminated against, dismissed, and even supplanted as a species (through the development of artificial insemination, robot technology, and other forms of artificial creation)--an unnatural legacy in need of profound revision. Both Noble and Joseph Schwartz (The Creative Moment, reviewed below) describe the world of modern science as an insulated, priestly, and discriminatory culture--but their explanations of how and why it got that way (and particularly their antithetical depictions of Galileo and Newton) remain strikingly and intriguingly opposed. -- Copyright ©1992, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. Book Description Why is it that Western science evolved as a thoroughly male-dominated enterprise? As philosopher Sandra Harding has noted, "women have been more systematically excluded from doing serious science than performing any other social activity except, perhaps, frontline warfare." In A World Without Women, David F. Noble provides the first full-scale investigation of the origins and implications of the masculine culture of Western science and technology, and in the process offers some surprising revelations. Noble begins by showing that, contrary to the widely held notion that the culture of learning in the West has always excluded women--an assumption that rests largely upon the supposed legacy of ancient Greece--men did not thoroughly dominate intellectual life until the beginning of the second millennium of the Christian era. At this time science and the practices of higher learning became the exclusive province of the newly celibate Christian clergy, whose ascetic culture denied women a place in any scholarly enterprise. By the twelfth century, papal reform movements had all but swept away the material and ideological supports of future female participation in the world of learning; as never before, women were on the outside looking in. Noble further demonstrates that the clerical legacy of a world without women remained more or less intact through the Reformation, and permeated the emergant culture of science. A World Without Women finally points to a dread of women at the core of modern scientific and technological enterprise, as these disciplines work to deprive one-half of humanity of its role in production (as seen in the Industrial Revolution's male appropriation of labor) and reproduction as well (the age-old quest for an artificial womb). It also makes plain the hypocrisy of a community that can honor a female scientist with a bronze bust, as England's Royal Society did for Mary Somerville in the mid-nineteenth century, yet deny her entry to the very meeting hall in which it enjoyed pride of place. An important and often disturbing book, A World Without Women is essential reading for anyone concerned not only about the world of science, but about the world that science has made. Take care, Brian > Selma, > > As someone mentioned it was a speech to his fellows, which affected > the > words. It often seems like an old boy's club, with everyone quoting > each other. > > However, I don't think there was a whole. He rambled a lot, didn't > really > make any point in a satisfactory way. It is assumed quite often that > if > something is presented in cabalistic fashion, it must be profound. > > We may need that little boy who saw the Emperor wore no clothes. > > I concede that I may simply not be intelligent enough, nor perhaps > well-read enough, to understand the deep significance of what he > wrote. > > So, perhaps someone will tell me. > > Harry > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Selma wrote: > > >Harry, > > > >It seems to me you've taken Shotter's quotes out of context and > interpreted > >the pieces in a way that doesn't fit with, at least my reading, of > the whole > >of what he had to say. > > > >I don't think he is saying that testing or science is bad or > unnecessary; I > >don't think that is what he was saying at all. What I did read > sounded not > >entirely different from what people like Wittgenstein, Bateson and > others > >argue and that is that you cannot know about something until you get > outside > >of it. You cannot deal with the problems of a theory unless you are > willing > >to acknowledge that there may be problems with it and thereby allow > yourself > >to get outside of it in order to have some perspective on it. > > > >Thomas Khun also deals with some of these issues when he talks about > the > >ways in which paradigms change; they cannot change unless the context > in > >which they are being used allows for the possibility that they may be > >inadequate; one has to think "outside the box" and that's not > possible as > >long as one is locked into the theory itself. > > > >Selma > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Brian McAndrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 9:13 PM > >Subject: RE: [Futurework] Re: Not ideological (was More crap again) > > > > > > > Brian, > > > > > > The "way of the theory" isn't at all bad. > > > > > > You observe, and see a possible relationship.You make a > hypothesis, which > > > you test. If it tests out positively, you might raise it to a > theory. If > > > your theory shows invariability, you might well raise it to a law, > but > >that > > > isn't so likely - though to be desired. > > > > > > As I said, it doesn't seem at all bad to me. > > > > > > Yet Shotter feels we must throw it out to make room for - actually > >nothing, > > > not even a theory. In fact, worse, he doesn't seem to climb past > that > >worst > > > of all possible worlds, the untestable hypothesis > > > > > > He quotes Kitto: > > > > > > "the universe, both the physical and the moral universe, must not > only be > > > rational, and therefore knowable, but also simple; the apparent > > > multiplicity of things is only apparent" > > > > > > Well, you know the two assumptions I suggested preceded every > science. > >They > > > don't have to stated. They are just assumed, because they must be. > > > > > > "There is an order in the universe." > > > > > > "The mind of Man can discover that order." > > > > > > If the opposite is assumed, there can be no science. In fact, > anyone must > > > fear the very next moment, for it might be chaos. So the scientist > >proceeds > > > as if the assumptions are correct. > > > > > > He says: > > > > > > "the way of theory suggests to us that the primary source of all > of our > > > human activities is, supposedly, to be found in mental > representations > > > inside the heads of individuals" > > > > > > Manifestly ridiculous. We may hypothesize that is going to rain. > But the > > > source of the hypothesis is observational. We see circumstances > that lead > > > us to expect rain - from what we already have observed at other > times. > > > > > > He says: > > > > > > "This leads on to a second point, a worry to do with the forming > of human > > > communities: For the way of theory suggests to us that they come > into > >being > > > through the forming of rational agreements - Rousseauian 'social > > > contracts'. In other words, it suggests that new forms of social > relations > > > can be argued or administrated into existence. But, as Richard > Bernstein > > > (1983) remarks, all attempts to implement 'the idea that we can > make, > > > engineer, impose our collective will to form [new] communities... > have > >been > > > disastrous" > > > > > > Again, rather doubtful, but he sets up a situation then argues > against it. > > > Agreements follow the establishment of a community - agreements > not to > >harm > > > each other, for example. > > > > > > But, in the "collective will" area, utopian communities are > plentiful. > >They > > > fail mostly, but not necessarily, when the charismatic leader > dies. > > > Religious communities often last for generations - and longer. > > > > > > If he refers to the failure of government power to do things, > that's > > > another matter. > > > > > > His "eyes of a stranger" bit is much ado about nothing. The > Pollards talk > > > to everyone, at any time, under all conditions. Our lives are > enriched by > > > these contacts. Yet, we haven't lately met any Others, or > Othernesses up > >on > > > the mountain recently. > > > > > > Today, by the water, we passed the time of day with a family we > haven't > >met > > > before. We discussed the paths up the mountain, an alternative > trail to > >the > > > top from Glendale, rain, snow, and whether the little girl took > care of > >the > > > two twin sons. > > > > > > Then we went on up, and the family presumably went to their car. > We > >enjoyed > > > the meet, but there was nothing darkly significant about it. > > > > > > I intended to cut him to pieces, but it's wearisome. > > > > > > I don't think he says very much, but he wraps anything he does say > in a > > > torrent of words that obfuscate rather than announce any > profundities. > > > > > > The amusing ting about what he says is that (as I said above) it > is > >couched > > > in the manner of an hypothesis - an untestable hypothesis. > > > > > > If it were testable, it would perhaps march onward toward "the way > of a > > > theory". > > > > > > Which would no doubt send him into a tizzy. > > > > > > Harry > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
