 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture no, first he wrote the medium is the message, then he wrote a short book with the pun you cite. so we're both right. r On Jan 23, 2005, at 4:42 PM, Joann McNamara wrote: > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and > culture > I simply can't resist interjecting a little pedantry into this lofty > discussion. Marshall McLuhan wrote The Medium is the Massage----not > the "message." > > Jo Ann McNamara > ----- Original Message ----- > From: richard landes > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 1:43 PM > Subject: Re: [M-R] Method and ugliness > > > On Jan 23, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Jim Bugslag wrote: > > > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and > culture > > > okay, i'll bite; what do you mean by foucauldian? what's the fence i > can't sit on? > > Richard, > Although somewhat unintended, it appears we have a discussion on our > hands. It > might even turn into a thread! By Foucauldian, I was referring to > Michel Foucault's > "archeology" of knowledge, principally enunciated in his book, The > Order of Things, > in which he equates knowledge and power on a theoretical level. > > here's part of what i have trouble with. related? of course. equated? > why? what does that mean? > > > I can hardly > pretend to be an expert on Foucault, but I think that it is important > to make such > connections explicit, particularly for the Middle Ages, when what > written sources that > we have were virtually all written by a clerical elite, whose > activities, first in creating > them and subsequently in archiving them, served their own hegemonic > ends. > > agreed. one of my main points about apocalyptic discourse (the End -- > however conceived -- is nigh) is that since it's always wrong (End > still not here), while churchmen (and women) may have waxed > apocalyptic, the archivists and copyists do the clean-up job on what > they said. hence augustine rules the documentary world (a real > hegemonic discourse about Revelation) in a way that i doubt he ruled > the oral world. > > my problem with hegemonic discourse as i most often see it invoked, is > that as far as i can make out there is no unitary hegemonic end that > unites all these clerical voices. granted there are some that carry > particularly great weight -- eg the welfare of the church -- but even > that is up for grabs at various points of reform when what is "good > for the church" changes tack. this is where the equation of power and > knowledge becomes problematic. indeed, what is so striking about > medieval western europe is how contentious the discourse was, and how > often "knowledge" subverted various forms of power. when you can't see > that happening (eg in the various phases of the peace of god) and > insist that the discourse is a hegemonic one from the start (ie the > bishops "peace", or the "seigneurial" peace) then i think you miss > critical nodes of transformative rather than hegemonic discourse. > > > Practices and ideas that do not conform to their interests only rarely > get mentioned > and at that, are mentioned only in a negative or proscriptive sense > (e.g. in > inquisition records, when they were being prosecuted in an attempt to > stamp them > out). > > precisely. and we need to look for the vestiges of what is being > repressed and ask ourselves what role these discourses played in oral > culture (ie the world where, among other things, political decisions > are made), which in most cases may differ radically from the > impression given by written sources. > > > As Marshall McLuhan put it back in the 60s, "the medium *is* the > message". > > and that was one of McLuhan's problems -- he had a brilliant insight: > "the medium *is* *a* message, and he packaged it (to illustrate the > point) as *the* message. medium is incredibly important and much > underestimated by scholars who assume literacy and therefore identify > most easily with the literate (ie the clergy who produce their > documents). but so is content. > > > That is why, I believe, the subsequent discussion about "urban > legends" has taken > the tone it has: the very "medium" represents social and ideological > interests that > not everyone shares. > > what medium? urban legends? or written documentation. > > > In historical terms, that makes for something of a > methodological quagmire (although one that might be theorized down to a > minimum, if there were an adequate effort at it). > > you mean becoming aware of the problem may help us deal with it? i'm > in favor. i'm just not sure that foucault, despite his brilliance, is > the best theoretical handle. > > > That is why I mentioned > ethnography, which takes a very different approach to "legends", which > it takes for > granted represents *somebody*'s social interests and tries to analyse > them in order > to see how they fit into broader social patterns and structures. > > one of the things i've noticed is that people can believe things that > are not in their interests, and that to analyze things in this > functional way (e.g., the documentary hypothesis with the Bible) is > only partly useful, and often misleading. it leads to a kind of venal > marxism where everyone is corrupt and only says things to serve > personal or corporate interests understood in the basest (zeero-sum) > terms. i think that while that is going on, there's more as well. > > > You began this discussion (unintentionally) by clearly distinguishing > "urban > legends" from "sources". Yet, you seem, as well, to be implying that > you have > somehow been making use of "oral sources" in your work. From where I'm > sitting, > that is sitting on both sides of the same fence. > > when i heard it was an urban legend, i assumed that meant that the > story of a beguine refused entry for being beautiful and scarring her > face to get in was not to be found in the medieval sources, but in > modern, uinfootnoted discourse (ie if i cd remember where i'd read it, > i'd find it didn't have a footnote). when i asked if it were an urban > legend, i meant, "do we have a narrative from the 13th? cn that tells > this tale -- whether it actually happened or not (another level of > "urban legend"). we may have confused levels of urban legend here. > > r (from blizzard-swept boston) > > ********************************************************************** > To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME > to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it > to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the > message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order > to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: > [log in to unmask] For further information, > visit our web site: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html