John,
I take your point completely that we have to be very careful about
deploying the notion of "misconception" as a vehicle for our own
ideological proclivities. I think I was responding to what I hear from
most folks I've encountered when they mention children in the middle ages
at all. They usually come up with is some version of Aries: Medieval
people didn't love their children because so many of them died. And I
guess I would venture the veiw that Aries' views still form the basis of
many people's assumptions. But I think you are equally on the mark in
noting that a "medieval conception" of children and childhood (again, a
grossly generalized and inappropriate term) should not be confused with
contemporary attitudes. As you say, how we formulate the question or
"negotiate that gap" between "we moderns" and "those medievals" is a
concern equal the issue itself.
I don't have my Aries file at hand presently, but I do remember a couple of
interesting review / critiques of his work: Sheila Ryan Johansson,
"Centuries of Childhood/Centuries of Parenting: Philippe Aries and the
Modernization of Privileged Infancy," Journal of Family History 12 (1987):
343-65 and Paul G. Spagnoli, "Philippe Aries, Historian of the Family,"
Journal of Family History 6 (1981): 434-41.
Yours,
Dan Kline
At 10:59 AM 2/13/98 +0000, you wrote:
>> Daniel T. Kline wrote:
>> Misconception:
>> > That parents in the middle ages didn't love their children or that
medieval
>> > people didn't have any conception of childhood, a la Aries.
>
>>[Dr Ross wrote:]
>> Aries and Le Goff have a lot to answer for on that one. It is obvious
>> Aries is grinding an axe.
>
>Dear All
>I seem to recall being told that Aries is very right-wing (as in VERY)
>which certainly effects his narrative on how attitudes to death changed;
>but I'm less sure (not having yet read the childhood book, although it
>has been sitting on my shelf for two years!) how this plays out in the
>children question.
>
>However, another point: we need to be careful here about what we see as
>'misconceptions'. I quite agree that medieval attitudes to childhood were
>not as Aries represents them. However, I would also argue that neither
>were they the same attitudes as 'we' (=modern westerners) have, for a
>whole bunch of social, economic and cultural reasons. A lot of what is at
>stake in this discussion of misconceptions comes down to either
>repudiating the view that they were the 'same' as us, or that they were
>'other' than we are. The problem (and it is a wider
>historiographical/philosophical problem) is how we then define,
>understand and negotiate that gap... There is a some danger in this
>debate of us deriding 'popular misconceptions' to prop up our own
>privileged knowledge of the middle ages - when, in fact, our own
>knowledge is at many points partial, incomplete, and problematic. This is
>not a criticism of the project of rectifying 'misconceptions'; but it is
>a note of warning over how we conduct that project.
>
>Cheers
>john arnold
>
>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Daniel T. Kline
U. of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Ofc: 907/786-4364
Email: [log in to unmask]
Home Page: www.engl.uaa.alaska.edu/kline/index.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|