Medievalism, Dwarwinism, and Disabilitizing

Medievalism

Anatomical Man, Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry.

The mysteries of the human body have generated some very creative thinking, and there is a reason why the medical arts were originally considered to be a part of the "arts" rather than "sciences" (as these medieval illustrations emphasize).  In the Middle Ages, medicine was dominated by religious and artistic thinking.  The Middle Ages were not "dark" ages ("dark" suggests that there was no creative or ingenuitive thinking), nor were they a time of purely fantasy-world living.  However, they were a time of unscientific, anti-philosophical, and thus often unreasonable thinking--from our contemporary day perspective.  For example, most contemporary practices of medieval medicine hold very little scientific support.  Medieval medical practices took on a very different philosophical, scientific, and religious approach.  Observes Nancy G. Siraisi, "The criticisms of medical practitioners that were frequently voiced usually sprang less from dissatisfaction with medicine's limited effectiveness than from religious tradition, with its powerful themes linking healing with religious charity and miraculous intervention, and its assertion of the priority of the healing of the soul over the healing of the body" (Medieval & Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice 43).


Perspective is everything.

13th century illustration of viens.

 We think that we are enlightened, and certainly we are more enlightened than folks of medieval Europe--just as a 13-year-old is more enlightened than a 5-year-old; however, like a 13-year-old, we (as a society) often seem unable to recognize the limitations of our intellectual collective growth.  Those who study medievalism, spend a great deal of energy pointing out the aspects of contemporary thought (in literature, in the arts, in politics, in popular culture, and so forth) that are yet more "medieval" than they are "contemporary" in nature.  Indeed, one need only make a quick observation (much less a deeper analysis) of medievalism in video games to know that the desire to move backwards in the time-space continuum is strong.  Some thinkers call this re-invention of the Middle Ages, which often has a sci-fi twist (such as the blending of space aliens and elves in World of Warcraft) to be a type of neomedievalism.  It's all a lot of fun! 


However, such fantasies of the medieval world are not...well, realistic.  Indeed, it appears worthwhile to take a closer look at the treatment of, for example, the "disabled" in the Middle Ages. (I write "disabled" in quotes because, as I will argue in another blog post, disability is a matter of perspective, too.)  For example, promising scholar observes, "The fact that deaf-mutes are mentioned in legal records (and I'm certain they're mentioned elsewhere, of course!) doesn't mean that they're irrelevant to historians. One would think that these legal references would be seen in a positive light: they certainly demonstrate that medieval understandings of deafness (and disability in general) may very well have been quite sensible and practical in taking real-life considerations into account instead of painting the deaf (or disabled) with a single brush" (Medieval Cripples, Crazies and Imbeciles...and a Service Dog? "Disabled Histories: Part I").1


Darwinism
The contemporary practice "of painting the deaf (or disabled) with a single brush" has not been sufficiently dis-mantled (disabled).  Indeed, mis-guided applications of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution seem to have only strengthened this abusive practice. The concepts of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" have been misapplied to mean more of a medievalist "might makes right" argument than the more scientific and reasonable (and actual) argument that--over a period of many years--certain characteristics might be deemed more desirable or necessary to survival than others.  For example, the qualities of "natural selection" of a mate can be quite varied and are far from being "correct" or even appropriate to survival.  Furthermore, the qualities of "survival of the fittest" do not justify inhumane practices, much less the broad-sweeping assumption that only a small percentage of the human population is disabled--that's a myth.  The reality is that only a small percentage of the various types of both physical and mental disabilities in only a small percentage of the human population have been identified.


One unidentified, and seemingly (so far) unexplicable disability--a mental one--involves the inability to rationally perceive Evolution Theory.2   As, amazingly, a relatively recent article illustrates ("Scopes Weeps: Evolution Still Struggling in Public Schools"), reality seems to be much more difficult to accept than fantasy!  Fantasy is a wonderful (and even sometimes healthy) escape--it illustrates the wonderful creative thinking of which human beings are capable.  But to insist that we live in a fantasy world all the time--to call (as I once saw being done in a college level biology class) Evolution little more than an "atheist belief" that is on equal par with Creationism is, well INSANE.  No wonder, then, that a passionate movement to celebrate Charles Darwin's birthday ("Tell Congress to Approve the Darwin Day Resolution!") is on the rise.  


And no wonder we have...

Minchin-ism

"Storm" by Tim Minchin--as seen on Pharyngula (scienceblogs)


---------------------------------

1 For more information about medieval disability studies, consider Disability in the Middle Ages (Ed. Joshua R. Eyler) or Disability in the Middle Ages: Impairment at the Intersection of Historical Inquiry and Disability Studies (Irina Metzler).

2 Please see my previous blog entry, "Theory vs. Belief vs. Opinion" (Hiccuping Thoughts).

 ---------------------------------------