Michael Hardner Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/17/shlain-alphabet-goddess/ As Sophocles wisely observed, “nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.” That curse is what Leonard Shlainexplores in The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image (public library) — a pause-giving look at the relationship between literacy and patriarchy. I love that quote "nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse". In other words, when it comes to new pervasive technologies, you win a few you lose a few. McLuhan had his laws of media, addressed by the question: What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier? That would be the "win a few" part. The article is thought-provoking and seems to signal that hierarchies will crumble thanks to new media. I don't disagree with that conjecture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrad_of_media_effects Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 The more I read of this the more bizarre it started to seem. Most of the "evidence" seems to have been circumstantial at best. And did it even attempt to explain patriarchal structures in societies where only the elites could read? Not to mention that I think it got images wrong. Images are not holistic. There is a lot of brain work going on behind the scenes of seeing. That is all tied up in why we have this idea of "focus" , both the visual and mental versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 "Without denying the vastness of the benefits literacy bestowed upon humanity..." Oh, good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) The premise is nonsense: Girls in school are statistically better at reading/writing than boys of the same age. The suggestion that the written word confers an advantage on men is not supported by this data. Literacy enables a society where knowledge is a marketable skill which greatly reduces the benefit men get from their larger size and strength. Literacy in the online world is more important than it has even been. By the time they are 18 most kids will have read and written a lot more than their parents or grandparents did by the same age because the written word has become the primary way to interact with the world. Edited February 7, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) The book's own description from the OP link: This groundbreaking book proposes that the rise of alphabetic literacy reconfigured the human brain and brought about profound changes in history, religion, and gender relations. Making remarkable connections across brain function, myth, and anthropology, Dr. Shlain shows why pre-literate cultures were principally informed by holistic, right-brain modes that venerated the Goddess, images, and feminine values. Writing drove cultures toward linear left-brain thinking and this shift upset the balance between men and women, initiating the decline of the feminine and ushering in patriarchal rule. Examining the cultures of the Israelites, Greeks, Christians, and Muslims, Shlain reinterprets ancient myths and parables in light of his theory. Provocative and inspiring, this book is a paradigm-shattering work that will transform your view of history and the mind. An incredibly bold premise. I can't refute it since I haven't read the book nor its evidence. However, I've always assumed it was male physical superiority over women as to why pretty much every large culture in the world is patriarchal. In some societies men can therefore physically control whether or not women become literate/educated or not. As with virtually all power struggles in this world (both human and in nature), the most powerful prevail over the weaker...a logical outcome. Edited February 7, 2015 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 It's interesting that many of you seem to be learning about this idea for the first time, even if you do reject it outright. I suggest you read about the fertile crescent and ancient Sumaria. The arrival of writing brought hierarchy, laws, central banking, organized religion - all of which are specialist tasks that required technical knowledged that bestowed unknown power ... far more than before. The priests, and leaders, the lawmakers were men. Contrast that with more balanced gender roles in hunter-gatherer type societies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 It's interesting that many of you seem to be learning about this idea for the first time, even if you do reject it outright.Apologies for being off topic, but the biggest threat to our society is exactly this phenomenon here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 but the biggest threat to our society is exactly this phenomenon here. What ? People considering themselves experts on something after reading it for the first time ? Male-dominated institutions ? Both ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 What ? People considering themselves experts on something after reading it for the first time ? Male-dominated institutions ? Both ?People who reject ideas before even understanding them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) It's interesting that many of you seem to be learning about this idea for the first time, even if you do reject it outright.It does not take long to look at a premise and establish that it is complete nonsense. For example, if someone claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine someone else does not need to understand the details of their claim before deciding that it is nonsense. Contrast that with more balanced gender roles in hunter-gatherer type societies.Correlation is NOT causation. You should know this. Making a claim of causation requires, at a minimum, a coherent and believable argument that there could be a causal link. Such an argument cannot simply ignore other data that completely contradicts the claimed thesis (e.g. in modern societies girls are better able to master literacy skills than boys) or ignore other theories which better explain the correlation. A much more believable thesis is that as societies grow in size they must adopt rigid social rules in order to enable collaboration between members of the same society that don't know each other personally. In pre-industrial societies these rules tended to create patriarchies because the physical size and strength of men meant they were in the best position to protect the society from outside threats. Patriarchies did not exist when external threats were minimal (e.g. some pacific island societies) or when technology leveled the playing field between by putting value on knowledge instead of strength. Edited February 8, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 It does not take long to look at a premise and establish that it is complete nonsense. For example, if someone claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine someone else does not need to understand the details of their claim before deciding that it is nonsense. Yes, because that's against the laws of physics. Correlation is NOT causation. You should know this. This is not science, so you can never prove anything 100%. A much more believable thesis is that as societies grow in size they must adopt rigid social rules in order to enable collaboration between members of the same society that don't know each other personally. Where did you read that thesis ? In pre-industrial societies these rules tended to create patriarchies because the physical size and strength of men meant they were in the best position to protect the society from outside threats. Then why is pre-literate society different again ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Where did you read that thesis ?On CBC. Gwyn Dyer presented a series called "Civilization" that looked the the evolution from tribal cultures to mass societies and presented a much more plausible explanation for the shift from relatively egalitarian hunter gather societies to patriarchies. His thesis is that terror, militarism and rigid patriarchy were the most effective way to organize a mass society prior to mass communication. Mass communication removed this requirement and allowed to return of the egalitarian society. He uses ancient Egypt as an exception to the rule of patriarchy in pre-technological society and suggests that the reason for the difference is the physical isolation created by the desert that protected Egypt from external invasions. As soon as invaders arrived the patriarchy appeared. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB86D934F87FFB83F I realize we are talking about hypotheses that cannot be proven. But I have found this thesis on patriarchy to be the most logically consistent. The most important element is that literacy is a vehicle that leads to the end of patriarchy - not the creation of it (hence my visceral reaction to this op). Edited February 8, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 On CBC. Gwyn Dyer presented a series called "Civilization" that looked the the evolution from tribal cultures to mass societies and presented a much more plausible explanation for the shift from relatively egalitarian hunter gather societies to patriarchies. His thesis is that terror, militarism and rigid patriarchy were the most effective way to organize a mass society prior to mass communication. He's a bright guy. I have read his books. His theory doesn't preclude specialization from having a part in that process though. Mass communication removed this requirement and allowed to return of the egalitarian society. Mass communication returned with the printing press, though. Egalitarian society ... not sure when that came back, if it ever did. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB86D934F87FFB83F The most important element is that literacy is a vehicle that leads to the end of patriarchy - not the creation of it (hence my visceral reaction to this op). Except that the development of writing ended matriarchy, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) The problem with the article is that there is a lot of things in it that are neither here nor there when it comes to whether writing was a cause of patriarchy. That could be completely true and yet most of their reasoning could be complete nonsense. There was way too much essentialization going on in there of complex properties of human faculties. That A causes B to happen does not mean by any means that the continued presence of A is the cause of the continued presence of B. Edited February 9, 2015 by Remiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Mass communication returned with the printing press, though. Egalitarian society ... not sure when that came back, if it ever did.It is a process that started with the printing press. You can't expect society to change over night. And we have an egalitarian society today and it could not have happened without literacy. Except that the development of writing ended matriarchy, so...It also ended government via local consensus based decision making. That does not imply a causal relationship. Edited February 9, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 It also ended government via local consensus based decision making. That does not imply a causal relationship. Well... everything changed together. Instead of having people sitting around and discussing things as a tribe, you had a temple and priests writing down laws. Seems pretty obvious to me but ... it's not science, you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 "Dr. Shlain shows why pre-literate cultures were principally informed by holistic, right-brain modes that venerated the Goddess, images, and feminine values. Writing drove cultures toward linear left-brain thinking and this shift upset the balance between men and women, " The 'left brain- right brain' hypothesis was discredited thirty odd years ago. I don't know if this has any impact on the OP, but it may reflect on the credibility of the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 Well... everything changed together. Instead of having people sitting around and discussing things as a tribe, you had a temple and priests writing down laws. Seems pretty obvious to me but ... it's not science, you're right.Dyer uses the egalitarian mass society in early Egypt as an exception to the rule and uses his thesis to explain the exception. How would you explain early Egypt with the literacy causes patriarchy thesis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) It's interesting that many of you seem to be learning about this idea for the first time, even if you do reject it outright. I suggest you read about the fertile crescent and ancient Sumaria. The arrival of writing brought hierarchy, laws, central banking, organized religion - all of which are specialist tasks that required technical knowledged that bestowed unknown power ... far more than before. The priests, and leaders, the lawmakers were men. Contrast that with more balanced gender roles in hunter-gatherer type societies. As far as I know, no evidence exists to substantiate this claim. Early hunter-gatherer type societies existed largely before the invention of writing or any kind of historical records. There is no reason to assume that just because history did not record it (since history didn't exist yet), that those societies were not also full of "gender imbalance". In fact, in almost any species that exhibits sexual dimorphism, as humans do, the larger/stronger/more important gender generally dominates the other gender. It is likely that in early societies, before the rise of law, hierarchy, and writing, that men simply took whatever women they wanted by force, and the only thing that stopped them would be more powerful men that wanted those same women for themselves. And the few isolated hunter-gatherer cultures that have lingered into modern times and were able to be studied, are, by definition, extreme exceptions to the rule. Something was extremely unique about their culture that left them in this prehistoric state until modern times, and therefore, their cultures are likely also highly atypical in other ways. Therefore any modern hunter/gather society studied by explorers in the last millennium are not counter-examples to my previous paragraph. Edited February 9, 2015 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 Dyer uses the egalitarian mass society in early Egypt as an exception to the rule and uses his thesis to explain the exception. How would you explain early Egypt with the literacy causes patriarchy thesis? I think this is the first time I heard of Egypt as an exception to the rule of patriarchy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 I think this is the first time I heard of Egypt as an exception to the rule of patriarchy.You did not answer the question. Did you listen to Dyer's thesis? You will need to understand the context for my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 You did not answer the question. Did you listen to Dyer's thesis? You will need to understand the context for my question. Right, you posted a link didn't you ? Ok. This will take some time but it's very interesting so I'll try to listen later. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 And the few isolated hunter-gatherer cultures that have lingered into modern times and were able to be studied, are, by definition, extreme exceptions to the rule. Something was extremely unique about their culture that left them in this prehistoric state until modern times, and therefore, their cultures are likely also highly atypical in other ways. I'm going to respond to this part for now at least. What makes, say, Mohawk hunter-gathers different from Sumerian in that "something extremely unique" was that they weren't encountered until 5000 years later or so. They may be atypical, but they are similar to other such societies on the other side of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 What makes, say, Mohawk hunter-gathers different from Sumerian in that "something extremely unique" was that they weren't encountered until 5000 years later or so. They may be atypical, but they are similar to other such societies on the other side of the world. No, societies that are left in isolation are very different from societies that continuously interact with other societies, especially in a competitive/adversarial way, which is the case for almost all human societies throughout history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 No, societies that are left in isolation are very different from societies that continuously interact with other societies, especially in a competitive/adversarial way, which is the case for almost all human societies throughout history. Ok, but we know about First Nations societies and others because contact was recent. Sumerian not as much, we have to rely on cultural artifacts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.