JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION  July 1996

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION July 1996

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: bias and the history of religion

From:

Richard Landes <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sun, 28 Jul 1996 09:29:24 -0400 (EDT)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (256 lines)

On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Dennis D. Martin wrote:

> I do believe that modern understandings of revolution and "struggle" are 
> different from medieval understandings of struggle.  I do not find any 
> evidence in ancient or medieval sources of a concept of revolution as 
> totally overturning the "tradited" (to avoid confusion arising from 
> "traditional") past.  

check out the chiliastic "tradition" which anticipates a radical reversal
in the social and political order... you can't get more "revolutionary" 
than that one.  not surprisingly, this is a teaching which our clerical
sources are almost universally hostile, esp. from the time the church
allied itself with the forces of aristocratic order. ps: to those who 
know chiliasm well, marx is a secular chiliast.

> Where commoners struggled against oppression from 
> elites, they normally appealed to a golden age in which justice reigned 
> and contrasted the present oppression with past justice.  A concept of 
> the past, the tradited, as necessarily primitive and therefore worse than 
> our present enlightenedness and future greater Progress, is unknown until 
> the modern era.  Thus the very word "primitive" means something quite 
> different to ancient and modern people.  

i think this is a fairly outdated argument now. even the movements (like
the Cappuciati and the Peasants of 1381) who looked back to a golden age
(time of adam and eve) did so to challenge fundamentally the structure of
society in the present. again i invoke the apocalyptic chiliastic 
tradition as a) deeply Christian and b) fundamentally forward looking. 
the idea of progress is not "unknown" until the modern era, it just has 
not come to dominate elite discourse until then.  when Guibert of Nogent 
call "commune" a new and awful word, he does not speak for medieval 
society as a whole in his suspicion of the new, he speaks for his 
aristocratic, conservative, document-producing clerical elite.  the 
thousands of communards in Laon, for whom "commune" is a battle-cry 
obviously did not think ill of the word.  did they not see their (and 
other) communes as progress? permit me to speculate here where the 
sources do not take us...

> Nor do I see in medieval sources 
> evidence of a fundamental notion of conflict as the key to history and 
> society, as it is in any number of modern philosophers and as it has 
> become common in the populace in more recent times (the New 
> Historicism and Deconstruction both place the notion of conflict at the 
> heart of reality).  For ancient and medieval thinkers and, I would argue, 
> for most people, the presence of conflict is largely a reminder of 
> declension from the harmony that should obtain between rich and poor, 
> powerful and powerless etc.

again let me point to the apocalyptic reading, which, i think you must 
grant was a fairly popular and widespread way of understanding current 
events (pace Augustine): it is the quintessence of conflict thinking, 
with everyone literally forced into the mold of forces of good and evil.  
even without this, i find it hard to understand how you can argue that, 
given the constant resort to devil/angel dichotomies in medieval 
religious thought to explain *everything* you can say that there is no 
evidence "in medieval sources of a fundamental notion of conflict as the 
key to history and society." have i misunderstood you?

> I did not claim that this is what people "really thought."  I simply said 
> that, if one begins with different assumptions about society (traditional 
> rather than revolutionary, harmony rather than irreducible conflict), one 
> will read the same sources and see different things there.  

or not see things that are there.  it is clearly in the interests of the 
aristocracy to present their case for order as one of harmony. does that 
mean that the (far larger) number of people who were not the material 
beneficiaries of such order also saw it that way?  comparatively speaking 
no tradited society (i like the term) has as many peasant revolts and as 
many expressions of hostility to the ruling elite as does medieval 
western xn.  that is not, i wd submit, an accident.

> I freely 
> admitted my commitments and perspectives.  You now scold me for being 
> blind to the way they influence the way I read medieval sources.  I said 
> from the start that I know they influence the way I read medieval 
> sources.  

just because you admit a partie-pris does not mean that you are therefore 
immune to criticism for the way that stance influences your reading of 
the sources. i think your comments above on "not seeing" notions of 
revolution and progess in the middle ages is a good example of how much 
your a-priori commitments predispose you to "not seeing" what's there, in 
the sources.

> I was asking someone else, 

me

> who quickly 

it may have seemed quick to you, but i have thought about it quite a bit.

> saw "hostility" as the 
> key to explaining the denouement of the Waldenses, to consider whether 
> the hostility he saw (a hostility/conflict that he and others have 
> frequently found in various aspects of medieval culture in posts to the 
> list) might in part reflect his own assumptions about social and cultural 
> patterns.

i don't know if i'd call them assumptions. i think there is a very large 
body of evidence to support the view that medieval culture is filled with 
conflict (eg the course of the papal reform), not the least of which is 
the consistent appearance of Christian groups who see the orthodox church 
as the whore of Babylon, and the consistently more violent approach that 
that church takes towards those who believe such things.  i think of them 
as conclusions not assumptions.
 
> Frankly, I'm tired of certain commitments (e.g., 
> religious ideologies and "conservative" commitments to use your 
> phrase--i.e., politically incorrect commitments, in today's Academy) 
> being considered ipso facto more biased than other ideological 
> commitments that are politically correct.

i am hardly politically correct, as any of my friends will tell you. i 
think you are tilting at the wrong windmill here.
 
> I did not defend Map.  Map has an elitist perspective.  I did not say 
> that all opinions expressed by elites in the Middle Ages are just, 
> judicious, accurate assessments of "commoners" just because they are made 
> by elites.  I simply protested that a blanket pro-commoner bias
> (hence blanket anti-elitism) such as was expressed in Richard Landes' 
> post would distort one's reading of the events.  Walter Map had no 
> authority in the situation, hence could speak as irresponsibly as he 
> wished.  His description must be weighed with all the other evidence and 
> all the weighing must be done in awareness of one's own standpoint.

i do think that it is unfair to call my sympathy for commoners and for
those called to the apostolic life a "blanket pro-commoner bias" or
"blanket elitism". i can see the warts (many) in popular attitudes and 
behaviors.

walter map may have spoken irresponsably but he also
represented a widespread attitude, and his account of waldo's humiliation
by the literati at the court reflects more than merely his personal
attitude. i consider his account especially valuable precisely because he
is letting us see behind the scenes. you want to "weigh it with all the
other evidence" in the case, which means marginalizing it by emphasizing
the "official positions" articulated by more "responsible" sources. i
don't think those responsible sources are nearly as valuable as map's;
it's like the difference btw comments on and off the record.  give me an
off-the-record comment that rings true (as does map's) over reams of
official statements any day. if you want to understand how waldo and his
followers felt upon leaving the papal court (which is what will help us
understand how this enthusiastically pro-Catholic group cd turn against
the church -- ie the point of this historical exercise), read Map and
interpret the papal response in light of Map (which is (more or less) what
i suggested at the start to someone who did not understand what the pope
was doing). 
 
> This is the classic Enlightenment critical method, except that 
> Enlightenment types themselves seldom really took account of their own 
> commitments; they were quite skilled at pointing out the commitments of 
> medieval churchmen or aristocrats but failed to see their own 
> precommitments.  Nor did they realize that an earlier _criti_cal method 
> functioned in medieval culture, based on the principle of discretio 
> (derived from _krisis_), about which I have published a few pieces. 

refs? i'd very much like to read them.

> In our postmodern present, we gleefully point out how biased the 
> Enlightenment types were, without realizing that postmodern pluralism, 
> New Historicism, or Deconstruction give a priority, a bias to disorder 
> over order, 

as i mentioned, i am not a post-mo, altho i think they are on to
something. it is precisely their use of their exegesis as a form of
cultural terrorism that i find so appalling.  but, yes, i am in favor of
listening to and hearing as many voices as i can in the texts and
reconstructing history as the interaction of these various views.  thus
for me, the peace movt is not only a "conservative movement" started and
directed by the episcopacy, but a social phenomenon that affected and was
affected by every group and stratum of medieval society (including, to an
impt degree, not yet considered, women).  i do not think we understand
either its course or its subsequent impact on medieval society by limiting
our view of its successes and failures to those perspective articulated 
by our sources. 

> which necessarily will make it difficult to understand a 
> period in history where Order and Harmony were assumed to be the ideals.

by...? this is, i submit, a gross generalization that reflects an 
inability to see beyond the aristocratic sources. if you rephrase that to 
say "difficult to understand a body of sources produced by people trained 
to believe that Order and Harmony were the ideals..." i'm with you. but 
don't impose such ideals on the 90-97% of the culture that did not 
necessarily either benefit from or share that perspective. 
  
> (We, of course, in our hyperenlightened Postmodernity, know that all 
> their talk of Order was either a naive or utterly clever way to rape and 
> dispossess the Other, the marginalized, the Victims--but that is what 
> bothers me about most PoMo interpretations: they too claim to tell us 
> what "people really thought"--they replace the Hegemony of belief in 
> Order with the Hegemony of belief in Disorder/Otherness/Decentering.  I 
> can think of nothing more arrogant than to tell me that all those 
> medieval people who talked incessantly about plurality within an 
> overarching, greater Order didn't realize that the _real_ clue to reality 
> is Decentering, Disorder, Deconstruction, Pluralism.

as my 12-year-old daughter wd say: hello'oo, i'm not saying that. i'm 
just saying that the hegemony of belief in Order is far more the 
impression of the sources than the reality, and that many others were not 
so much believers in the hegemony of disorder/otherness/decentering as 
believers in their versions of (right) order and that the result was a 
decentered, disordered pluralism which only seems like order when you 
stick close to the sources. i'm not saying they were pluralists, i'm 
saying that there were plural discourses going on, many not nearly as 
articulate and none as privileged in having our ear, as the 
ecclesiastical one*s*.  but that even within that documentation, if we 
listen carefully, we can hear the others. and that, i submit, is our job: 
reconstruct as many of the discourses and their relative strength at any 
given time as we can.  then we begin to understand the course of events 
(like Waldo's journey).

>   The comments I made about evaluating and controlling preaching 
> and vernacular translations had to do with those who held authoritative 
> positions in the Church and society.  And I gave no blanket approval to 
> their decisions, merely said that seen from the perspective of one 
> holding responsibility for government, the phenomenon of the Poor Men of 
> Lyons may appear different than if one sees it from the perspective of 
> one who does not hold responsibility for government.  

agreed. and they manifest themselves as hostility.

> And I intended to 
> imply that the dominant anti-institutionalism of the last 30 years in the 
> West, with roots reaching back much further, colors the way we perceive 
> the exercise of authority in the past and we ought to be honest about it.

agreed. i am, by nature, a heretic.

> Each scholar is entitled to her commitments and biases.  We do not 
> agree.  Our situation is pluralist.  But when we extend that situation 
> either to Reality as a whole (by decrying the Other who still 
> naively believes in an ordered reality) 

i don't decry it (unless it slips over into something like apologia for 
the inquisition -- which i am not accusing you of), but, i'm sorry, i do 
consider it naive.

> or to the people of the past (by 
> decrying those who read history from an Other perspective of Order/Harmony 
> despite aberrant disorderly phenomena that are clearly observable), the 
> we are extending the Hegemony of disorder over the Other (the Other who 
> believes in Order).  Which means that the advocates of 
> Deconstruction/Disorder/Pluralist Otherness are actually as hegemonic as 
> any of the people in the present or past they criticize.

agreed that in its most visible and obnoxious form, deconstruction is 
precisely that. i try and avoid it, and wd appreciate it if you wd read 
me more carefully before lumping me with the cultural terrorists.

rlandes


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager