Yesterday
I became aware of an article published by The Economist on January
2nd titled
“Medieval Memes: The far right's new fascination with the Middle
Ages.” It is an irritating piece of clickbait, that I normally
would ignore, but this time its in my wheelhouse. Here
it is.
Here is the Archive link if you don't feel like giving the Economist clicks for it (or in case it is somehow edited or removed)
I
recommend reading along, because otherwise my ramblings won't make
any sense.
Some
credentials. I have a Master's Degree in Humanities, which is a small
department at my alma mater that focused on a more Classical fusion
of philosophy, literature, history and so on pertaining to a
historical area. It was very niche, and allowed the student and
department to work together to develop a focused curriculum suitable
to their field of study. Mine was the 14th-15th centuries
and more specifically the Northern Crusades. So while I am not
currently employed as a Medievalist (it is a very small field and
good luck getting your foot in the door unless you want to take a
Marxist or Feminist approach to the subject, then you can be swimming
in grant money. Sadly not a joke), nor am I by any means an expert in
the field, I still am a historian thanks to my academic training, and
I will be viewing this article though that lens.
First,
the byline. The initials “S.N.” which tell me nothing. I have no
idea who or what the author of the piece is, nor their credentials,
if they even have them. A quick search of the initials in connection
to The Economist bring up several “The Economist Explains”
articles. One about Dutch
people working part time, another about some
economists wanting to get rid of cash and so on. A dead end,
then. Next to it is “Claremont, California,” which a quick search
shows is a primarily residential town at the Eastern edge of Los
Angeles County that is home to a collection of seven colleges, both
undergrad and graduate. So its a college town, and a large one at
that. So the author of the piece is more likely to be a professor, or
staffer, or student than, say, a pipe fitter.
Below
that is a photograph from Game of Thrones featuring horsemen in armor
that is clearly more fantastical than real. (Seriously, Lamellar? In
a Wars of the Roses ripoff?) I suppose that's to be expected, since
GoT is visually synonymous with “standard fantasy” in the eyes of
modern pop culture. Ten years ago, it would've been a picture from
Lord of the Rings. Yet it has nothing to do with actual Medieval
scholarship outside of the visual cue of armored men on horseback.
The
text begins with a contradiction. The first sentence asserts that
until recently “it was rare to find Americans who were passionate
about both medieval history and contemporary politics.” First, this
is an anecdotal assumption without evidence provided (which is most
of the article). Second, it mentions “the odd Christian
conservative,” “a Marxist grad student” and “an environmental
activist” in a list of hypothetical examples of your average
medievalist. Each of these hypothetical people is identified as
someone deeply rooted in contemporary politics. It is a Christian
conservative, a Marxist grad student, and an Environmental
activist.
None
of these is a prerequisite for studying the past. Moreover, one need
not have a modern political agenda to be fascinated by land ownership
patterns or vegetable dyes. The Society for Creative Anachronism in
particular is deeply interested in rediscovering how authentic
Medieval clothing was constructed for the purposes of recreating it.
Moreover
still, the odd “Christian Conservative” is less odd than one
would think. I went to a Jesuit university. One of my grad school
mentors was a Jesuit, and another was a devout layman who headed up
the Catholic Studies department. I shared several classes with a few
seminarians. The encompassed a broad spectrum of political alignment.
In my experience, you could not throw a copy of Summa Theologiæ
without hitting a fellow Catholic. Which is not a surprise,
considering that Europe during the time period in question was
dominated by the Roman Catholic Church.
“Since
the September 11th
attacks." The current year is 2017. 9/11 happened sixteen years
ago. There are people who were born after the event who are now
learning how to drive. “Fairly recently” is a stretch at this
point. “The American far right has developed a fascination with the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance—in particular, with the idea of the
West as a united civilisation that was fending off a challenge from
the East.” The idea of a unified Western European civilization
(interestingly, the spelling of “civilization” uses the British
variant, a possible clue to our mystery author) is one that the
Medieval Europeans themselves held. It was called Christendom, and
referred generally to the lands where Christianity was the dominant
religion as opposed to neighboring Islam or paganism. The notion of
“whiteness” was much less important than being Christian to the
Medieval mind. This is part of the reason why Europeans were so
enamored with the legend of Prestor John's distant, but very
Christian, kingdom providing assistance to greater Christendom in a
time of need.
In
function "Christendom" was more of a cultural identity than
an established geopolitical unit, since Christian kings and nobles
were constantly fighting each other over worldly disputes well before
the Reformation fractured the religion in Western Europe. There's
also the constant friction between the Papal States and the Holy
Roman Empire over who should lead the general Christian community,
the Popes or the Imperial heirs of Charlemagne, that frequently led
to wars and excommunications of Emperors. The idea of “Christendom”
is by no means new. It is also no surprise that when Islamic
extremists refer to their own attacks as literal holy jihads, that
there are people who would take to the idea that “Christendom” is
under attack again. In many ways, it is, or are we ignoring the
criticisms of the “decadent West” and the rhetoric of how America
is “The Great Satan” which was used by the Ayatollah of Iran in
the 1970s? The far-right of the West are not the only ones dredging
this imagery up.
“The
embrace of the medieval extends from the alt-right online forum
culture that has exploded in the last few years to stodgier
old-school racists.” Oh boy, here we go. Deus Vult memes from
Reddit and Twitter are very, very, very rarely to be taken seriously,
as are photoshops of Donald Trump in crusader armor shouting “Deus
Vult!” as a reference to his saber rattling against ISIS. Internet
“shitposting” as its called (if you'll pardon my French) is
mostly to be taken ironically or deliberately contrarian to get a
rise out of people. A quick look at Know Your Meme would
provide plenty of stupid jokes that display this.
“Anti-Islam
journals and websites name themselves after the Frankish king Charles
Martel, who fought Muslim armies in the 8th century.” I have never
heard of a website named after Charles Martel, but I know for a fact
that he was the father of the man who would establish the Carolingian
Dynasty (Pepin the Short) and while Charles himself would
functionally rule as Mayor of the Palace and Duke and Prince of the
Franks, he never, EVER became king and deliberately left the throne
vacant during his time as regent.
This
is not some nobody. This is the grandfather of Charlemagne and a
major early Medieval figure in his own right. He is well documented,
and a MEDIEVALIST, even one not focusing on the Carolingian period,
could verify this information with even a quick glance at any online
encyclopedia.
This is an insultingly amateurish error in basic research.
Curiously,
the article mentions that modern Jihadists use their own memes and
images to promote the idea that they are in a cultural war against a
reincarnated Byzantium. Sounds like an interesting counterpoint, but
is not addressed again.
We
continue. “For Americans who are indifferent to the Middle Ages, or
think of it as an unpleasant plague-ridden prelude to the present,
this might be of little consequence. But millions of others with
mainstream or left-leaning beliefs are attracted to the medieval
era—witness the popularity of Renaissance reenactments, or
medieval-inspired fantasies like "Game of Thrones".” I
will meet anecdote with anecdote: Most of the people I know who view
the Medieval period as “a plague-ridden prelude to the present”
are left-leaning or Progressive in some form or another.
Why
is there an automatic assumption that it is only millions of
left-leaning or “mainstream” people that are attracted to the
time period? For a theologically minded conservative Christian, the
works of Aquinas, Augustine, More, Erasmus, and Dante are THE bedrock
of academic scholarship. And “mainstream” is as vague a category
as can be imagined. Besides, aren't the masses of average people the
ones who don't care about the Medieval period that much anyway? I'm
getting deeply mixed signals here.
Then
it mentions conservative firebrand Milo Yiannapoulis for some reason
(probably clickbait algorithms). He's irrelevant to the article, but
regardless of what one thinks of Milo, he's such a self-promoter who
puts his name out as much and as far as possible that it should be
easy to copy and paste his last name into an article so that it can
be spelled properly. “Yiannopoulos.”
There. I just did it myself. Also, “including a preference for a
preference for “homogeneity over diversity.” is a sentence where
a big red circle from a professor would go to mark the error.
Proofreading is essential to presenting a academically professional
argument.
The
following paragraph quotes an essay by Sierra Lomuto (I had to look
up her credentials because the article did not provide them: she is a
doctoral candidate at the University of Pennsylvania with a
background in women's studies and English) at “In the Middle” a
left-wing academic blog that I have never heard of but has 2,895,500
page views. Here's
the essay in full, if you are of a mind to read it since the
author of the piece did not provide a link.
It
is left-wing and intersectional, which is a topic of social justice
controversy (and beyond the scope of this already too-long response),
but the crux of its argument is that it is a moral imperative for
Medievalists as a whole to resist white nationalism from pointing to
the Middle Ages to justify their own viewpoints. Fair enough, I
suppose, but could it not also be argued by a Medievalist who does
not subscribe to intersectional feminism that they too must be
resisted from pointing to the Middle Ages to justify their own
viewpoints if they are counterfactual? The end goal of historical
study should be historical accuracy, regardless of agenda.
“Art
historians document the appearances of dark-skinned migrants in
northern Europe to show that medieval populations, if not quite as
mobile as today, were still pretty mobile.” The “art historians”
mentioned is one person, the person who runs the People of Color in
European Art History page (medievalpoc.tumblr.com), which received
considerable attention from left-wing outlets in 2014 (including
NPR), has apparently received harrassment (which is never acceptable)
but has also been rightly criticized for presenting factually
incorrect information (the criticism of which is entirely acceptable
for someone purporting to be historically accurate). Here's
an example. (yes, its somebody roleplaying a Dalek, because
Tumblr is a bizarre place, but at least they show their work and
sources). Interestingly, the “In The Middle” essay also links to
the Medieval POC Tumblr page.
The
paragraph ends with: “Progressives and reactionaries may both be
drawn to the Middle Ages out of an affinity for “tradition,” says
Shirin Khanmohamadi, a professor of literature at San Francisco State
University who teaches a course called the Multicultural Middle Ages.
But progressives would find it most interesting to explore "the
premodern contribution to 'multiculturalism' and to other modes taken
for granted as modern."” Khanmohamadi has published one book,
“In Light of Another's Word European Ethnography in the Middle
Ages” in 2013 through the University of Pennsylvania Press. The
description of which seems to explore Medieval European travel
accounts, like those of “John Mandeville”, Gerald of Wales, and
William of Rubruck. Fair enough, that's an interesting subject. What
is much more controversial is her name attached to a list of 465
members of the MLA
Members for Justice in Palestine resolution. The Modern Language
Association is a huge body of academics who study modern languages
and literature and have created the MLA Style Manual, which dictates
the proper format for academic writing (in the Liberal Arts, at
least). I say controversial because the resolution would call on the
MLA to boycott
Israeli academic institutions until political criteria are met by the
state of Israel. That's uncomfortable territory for both sides of
the Israel-Palestine dispute.
Then
there is a small dig at people who enjoy movies and video games
because that's somehow a sign of intellectual inferiority somehow?
The very existence of Crusader Kings II, which is a very, very deep
Medieval Spreadsheet Simulator, points to the opposite, that these
mediums, while at times very flawed (such as Braveheart's Battle of
Stamford Bridge Without the Bridge or the blatant Soviet propaganda
of the 1938 film Aleksandr Nevskiy), they can be a valuable tool in
promoting the study of the time period. Yet while absorbing medieval
information primarily through movies is implied to be wrong, Game of
Thrones is somehow fine, despite being a show many people watch for
“titties and dragons.” If
it is because George R.R. Martin has the “correct” political
opinions, then this is, to appropriate a phrase, deeply
problematic.
On
the surface, it is a poorly-written article by an anonymous author
with multiple proofreading errors, one glaring factual error,
nonexistent citations, and a decidedly one-sided political slant that
requires research on the part of the reader to discover.
The
article's true argument seems to be that the Medieval period is one
of deep historical complexity and nuance (I agree) and that it is a
moral imperative that the gatekeepers of that academic knowledge must
resist political stances that they deem to be wrong by teaching the
benighted populist masses the error of their ways. On this I
vehemently disagree. An “Ivory Tower” approach to teaching about
the Medieval and Renaissance periods that presupposes the moral
authority of a particular modern political philosophy is a dangerous
slippery slope that discourages debate, encourages intellectual
stagnation, and ultimately drives people interested in the subject
matter away if they do not have the "correct" identity
politics. No matter how well-intentioned it may be, that kind of
mindset is identical to justifying every action with cries of “Deus
Vult!”
Closing
the academic gates against the supposed intellectual barbarians is
not the answer. Those hungry for knowledge will seek it elsewhere,
and the increasingly available translations of primary source
documents, living history groups like the Society for Creative
Anachronism (SCA) or several Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA)
schools or the slowly growing number of very knowledgeable Youtubers
will be happy to quench that thirst for knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment