Aeon makes money by shilling worthless books by crap academics.
How foolish are its writers? Very foolish indeed. Here is a lady who believes that a black man had a Mum who pretended to be a coal miner to explain why she was dark skinned! Her kids- who presumably did not have access to mirrors in Thatcher's Britain- were supposed to think of themselves as White so as to do well academically!
This is my deleted comment from Aeon on a silly essay about how Feminist Science would have been so much nicer than the ordinary sort.
Vivek Iyer
18 April 2022
DeleteEdit
The science of hadith was handed down at Mecca by female (not necessarily biological) lineages. Great savants of Islam received instruction from learned women in the Holy Sanctuary itself. Yet, the names of the various madhabs are of males. Why did matrilineal lineages lose salience and patriarchal descent come to define status and oikeiosis in both the epistemic as well as the secular world across many diverse cultures and religions? This is the genealogical question no Foucault can answer. Why? What is lacking is a theory of Power.
When I was a kid, there was an ad captum vulgi notion that ‘scription’ was essentially patriarchal because oral wisdom was seen as esoteric, if not erotic.
My mother, her doctoral dissertation having been rejected by Nairobi University, on petty political grounds, bitterly observed the fate of the Swahili seer sororities which had preserved different strains of Bantu ontological thinking under canonical Arab/Greek philosophical categories. That rich and variegated female epistemic tradition would only be taxonimized under the names of the ‘imaginary’ (in the Akbhari sense) djinn ‘husbands’- marriage to whom sealed their solidarity!
My mother herself, like many of her generation was reticent and fearful of ‘putting a naked sword in the hands of a child’ (i.e. publishing) . I recall her silently rebuking me- at the time when Mrs. Thatcher, in a Fascist manner, broke the Coal strike- for a short piece I wrote telling the story of how Mum would tell us she was a coal miner. Her skin was actually white. Her labor made it look black. She did not want us to suffer in our own educational career by having a racist self-image. At least that was what I argued in my article. Now I wonder whether there was some deeper ‘way of speaking-as-seeing’ (vakyodarshanoupayathirtham) which I, perhaps by reason of gendered entitlement, remained blind to.
Discussing this episode with my therapist recently we both, simultaneously, hit on the same question- viz. why among the myriad schools of Psychoanalysis is there only one- the Kleinian- named for a woman? The British School owes most to Anna Freud. Is this not what V.D Choothopadhyay calls scotimization? Google rankings are just one such ‘algorithm’ of self-blinding- so no Delilah inherit Gaza.
It’s easy to blame economics- male savants were better placed to advance the career of their proteges- but surely that has not been the case for some decades now? We speak of the ‘subaltern’ group but not the Spivak group. There is the Amartya Sen tradition. There is no Graciella Chichilnisky school because she sued Columbia for gender discrimination. The fact that she looked rather glamorous and was a better mathematician can’t have helped! Yet, it is she who gave us ‘Carbon Credits’ etc. Future generations will condemn us for ignoring her.
I feel men suffer a type of orphanhood when their Mother’s contribution is not recognized. Equally, the intellectual elitism of the Left-Liberals (when I was young) caused mothers to discourage their less able male offspring to write and express their views. In other words, female epistemic systems suppressed their own male gendered progeny unless a steep hurdle of cognitive ability and alethic attainment was first met. But who set that hurdle? Men who wanted to ration opportunities of advancement. By contrast maternal gnosis seeks to give all equally valid paths to the same level of capability and functioning. Surely this is the next step after ‘maiuetics’? I consider Pestalozzi a philosopher because his activity was ovary to figuring out that you have to change Maths to teach it to the poor. But that change in Maths had revolutionary and liberative consequences! Emmy Noether shows that if we want a (‘virtual) non-dissipative epistemics then certain symmetries must be preserved. Knowledge may be ‘embodied’ or ‘gendered’ but there is no hierarchy to that knowledge. Not, at any rate in this mother’s son.
Ann-Sophie Barwich Author
18 April 2022
Dear Vivek,
Thank you, very much, for your comment here. There is so much to think about in what you wrote – a lot of thoughts, and I feel honored for this reply so rich in considerations and pointers. Thank you. Your mother must have been an incredible person. Especially your comment here: “I feel men suffer a type of orphanhood when their Mother’s contribution is not recognized.” made me stop – and I will now think about this more.
“Why did matrilineal lineages lose salience and patriarchal descent come to define status and oikeiosis in both the epistemic as well as the secular world across many diverse cultures and religions? This is the genealogical question no Foucault ...
I want to highlight this thought in your writing here again because I think you hit on something crucial… that will now sit with me. I need to think about this.
You gave my mind something to think more deeply about. With vivid imagery, personal history, and impact. For that, I genuinely thank you.
(Ps: I am also relieved to see Pestalozzi’s name find modern mention. Haven’t heard that in a long time.)
Vivek Iyer
18 April 2022
DeleteEdit
The science of hadith was handed down at Mecca by female (not necessarily biological) lineages. Great savants of Islam received instruction from learned women in the Holy Sanctuary itself. Yet, the names of the various madhabs are of males. Why did matrilineal lineages lose salience and patriarchal descent come to define status and oikeiosis in both the epistemic as well as the secular world across many diverse cultures and religions? This is the genealogical question no Foucault can answer. Why? What is lacking is a theory of Power.
When I was a kid, there was an ad captum vulgi notion that ‘scription’ was essentially patriarchal because oral wisdom was seen as esoteric, if not erotic.
My mother, her doctoral dissertation having been rejected by Nairobi University, on petty political grounds, bitterly observed the fate of the Swahili seer sororities which had preserved different strains of Bantu ontological thinking under canonical Arab/Greek philosophical categories. That rich and variegated female epistemic tradition would only be taxonimized under the names of the ‘imaginary’ (in the Akbhari sense) djinn ‘husbands’- marriage to whom sealed their solidarity!
My mother herself, like many of her generation was reticent and fearful of ‘putting a naked sword in the hands of a child’ (i.e. publishing) . I recall her silently rebuking me- at the time when Mrs. Thatcher, in a Fascist manner, broke the Coal strike- for a short piece I wrote telling the story of how Mum would tell us she was a coal miner. Her skin was actually white. Her labor made it look black. She did not want us to suffer in our own educational career by having a racist self-image. At least that was what I argued in my article. Now I wonder whether there was some deeper ‘way of speaking-as-seeing’ (vakyodarshanoupayathirtham) which I, perhaps by reason of gendered entitlement, remained blind to.
Discussing this episode with my therapist recently we both, simultaneously, hit on the same question- viz. why among the myriad schools of Psychoanalysis is there only one- the Kleinian- named for a woman? The British School owes most to Anna Freud. Is this not what V.D Choothopadhyay calls scotimization? Google rankings are just one such ‘algorithm’ of self-blinding- so no Delilah inherit Gaza.
It’s easy to blame economics- male savants were better placed to advance the career of their proteges- but surely that has not been the case for some decades now? We speak of the ‘subaltern’ group but not the Spivak group. There is the Amartya Sen tradition. There is no Graciella Chichilnisky school because she sued Columbia for gender discrimination. The fact that she looked rather glamorous and was a better mathematician can’t have helped! Yet, it is she who gave us ‘Carbon Credits’ etc. Future generations will condemn us for ignoring her.
I feel men suffer a type of orphanhood when their Mother’s contribution is not recognized. Equally, the intellectual elitism of the Left-Liberals (when I was young) caused mothers to discourage their less able male offspring to write and express their views. In other words, female epistemic systems suppressed their own male gendered progeny unless a steep hurdle of cognitive ability and alethic attainment was first met. But who set that hurdle? Men who wanted to ration opportunities of advancement. By contrast maternal gnosis seeks to give all equally valid paths to the same level of capability and functioning. Surely this is the next step after ‘maiuetics’? I consider Pestalozzi a philosopher because his activity was ovary to figuring out that you have to change Maths to teach it to the poor. But that change in Maths had revolutionary and liberative consequences! Emmy Noether shows that if we want a (‘virtual) non-dissipative epistemics then certain symmetries must be preserved. Knowledge may be ‘embodied’ or ‘gendered’ but there is no hierarchy to that knowledge. Not, at any rate in this mother’s son.
Ann-Sophie Barwich Author
18 April 2022
Dear Vivek,
Thank you, very much, for your comment here. There is so much to think about in what you wrote – a lot of thoughts, and I feel honored for this reply so rich in considerations and pointers. Thank you. Your mother must have been an incredible person. Especially your comment here: “I feel men suffer a type of orphanhood when their Mother’s contribution is not recognized.” made me stop – and I will now think about this more.
“Why did matrilineal lineages lose salience and patriarchal descent come to define status and oikeiosis in both the epistemic as well as the secular world across many diverse cultures and religions? This is the genealogical question no Foucault ...
I want to highlight this thought in your writing here again because I think you hit on something crucial… that will now sit with me. I need to think about this.
You gave my mind something to think more deeply about. With vivid imagery, personal history, and impact. For that, I genuinely thank you.
(Ps: I am also relieved to see Pestalozzi’s name find modern mention. Haven’t heard that in a long time.)
The lady in question is German- the country of my birth. I felt I had dealt with her unfairly and emailed variegated insults to her. She got the message. Hopefully, she will hate elderly darkies like me and steer well clear of us in the future. Also, I hope she gets married and has kinder. That's what us elderly darkies like to see.
No comments:
Post a Comment