Thursday, June 17, 2004
Chaucer and sports scandals at the University of Colorado
Medieval literature has recently entered the ongoing scandal of the University of Colorado sports programme. Here is the account as reported by ESPN. I reproduce a few excerpts for commentary:
The rest of the article provides more context, though it must be said that the story has to be followed in several publications in order to understand the full contexts which prompted Hoffman's statement. A few things should be noted immediately:
The last point is where Hoffman made an error of judgement by seeming to deny the gravity of the offence. But the subsequent statement by Ames compounds the error beyond belief. I am not quite clear what it is intended to prove. That medievalists are nitwits so lost in the past that they are insensitive to present-day meaning? That because the word did not have negative connotations in the Middle Ages, we should not see them now?
The second option requires some more commentary since it forms part of a trend to use the Middle Ages to justify present-day deviant behaviour. An even more absurd example is the notorious Abercrombie and Fitch Christmas Field Guide, which was wrapped in a paper sleeve reading "280 pages of moose, ice hockey, chivalry, group sex & more" and containing statements like "Orgies and group sex were common in the Middle Ages. Promiscuity was popular with both the peasantry and the nobility. Since divorce was forbidden by the Church, adultery was common and socially accepted."
The context (which I have not quoted) of this statement is a recommendation for sexual promiscuity. Even more than the "it was once a term of endearment" argument, this seems to be adopting the medieval as an authority for present immoral behaviour. Viewed objectively, this is striking, since the "medieval" in modern parlance represents backwardness and barbarism. That today's use should wish to emulate "medieval" practices or to accept these practices as legitimising their own is quite amazing, given the long history of modern disparagement of the Middle Ages.
Viewed somewhat less objectively, the modern representations of the medieval in the two examples above are truly appalling. Note that I have placed the word medieval in inverted commas above where it does not strictly indicate the historical Middle Age. In other words, the "medieval" may refer to the "backward", as it is often used today, or to an inaccurate unhistorical representation of the Middle Ages, such as the Abercrombie & Fitch catalogy refers. Where did they get the idea that adultery was "socially acceptable" in the Middle Ages? This is a Middle Ages that reflects their own fantasy rather than historical reality. Nevertheless, there is an explanation for this fantasy, one that is perhaps large than I can deal with in this entry. The clue is the word "chivalry" on their cover. Most likely, they mean the word in its most inclusive sense, encompassing notions of courtly love. Since C.S. Lewis made adultery a central component of courtly love in The Allegory of Love, this practice has often been regarded as synonymous with adultery, at least in definitions widely available on the internet. Lewis's views have been widely discredited; see, for instance, Larry Benson's remarks in Courtly Love and Chivalry in the Later Middle Ages. But it remains widely influential (I often see it in student essays). More could be said about this, but I believe it's a separate topic.
My larger point is that both this and Michele Ames's justification of the use of "cunt" by past usage during the Middle Ages re-makes the medieval to serve modern in ways that are unconvincing but apparently credible enough to have social power. That the medieval can have such power is encouraging; that it should be used to support immoral practices is not. What, then, is the social power of the authentic Middle Ages?
The University of Colorado president was criticized Tuesday for refusing to condemn a vulgar anatomical reference allegedly used to describe a female football player who says she was raped by a teammate.
University President Betsy Hoffman's comments in a federal court case sparked a fresh storm of protest surrounding Colorado's flagship school. Women's groups and a member of the Board of Regents said they were appalled by what they called Hoffman's lack of sensitivity.
The comment came during a deposition given this month in a lawsuit filed by three women who say they were sexually assaulted by football athletes in 2001.
One of the women's attorneys told Hoffman the vulgar term had been used by a football player against teammate Katie Hnida. The attorney asked Hoffman whether she thought the term was "a filthy and vile word."
Hoffman replied it was a "swear word" and that its meaning depended on the circumstances in which it was used, according to a copy of the deposition released by the school.
Asked if it could ever be used in a polite context, Hoffman replied: "Yes, I've actually heard it used as a term of endearment."
Hoffman defended her answer Tuesday in a meeting with Durango Herald reporters and editors, but said she should have phrased it differently.
"I was immediately sorry I said it," she said.
Hoffman began to cry at one point in the discussion at the Herald and left the room briefly to compose herself, the newspaper reported.
University spokeswoman Michele Ames said Hoffman knows the word has "negative connotations" but it did not in its original use centuries ago.
"Because she is a medieval scholar, she is also aware of the long history of the word dating back to at least Chaucer," Ames said. English writer Geoffrey Chaucer lived in the late 1300s and used the word in "The Canterbury Tales."
The rest of the article provides more context, though it must be said that the story has to be followed in several publications in order to understand the full contexts which prompted Hoffman's statement. A few things should be noted immediately:
- Hoffman never referred to the Middle Ages in her statement; that reference was made later by university spokeswoman Michele Ames.
- Hoffman was once an historian (not a literature specialist); but she is really a career administrator. She is known for hiring Stanley Fish at the University of Illinois-Chicago.
- The word referred to in the article was cunt, and Hoffman's claim to have heard the word used as a "term of endearment" could be taken as a legal strategy of denying the premises of opposing counsel. That is, the word need not have been intended to have offensive meaning (though, of course, it was).
The last point is where Hoffman made an error of judgement by seeming to deny the gravity of the offence. But the subsequent statement by Ames compounds the error beyond belief. I am not quite clear what it is intended to prove. That medievalists are nitwits so lost in the past that they are insensitive to present-day meaning? That because the word did not have negative connotations in the Middle Ages, we should not see them now?
The second option requires some more commentary since it forms part of a trend to use the Middle Ages to justify present-day deviant behaviour. An even more absurd example is the notorious Abercrombie and Fitch Christmas Field Guide, which was wrapped in a paper sleeve reading "280 pages of moose, ice hockey, chivalry, group sex & more" and containing statements like "Orgies and group sex were common in the Middle Ages. Promiscuity was popular with both the peasantry and the nobility. Since divorce was forbidden by the Church, adultery was common and socially accepted."
The context (which I have not quoted) of this statement is a recommendation for sexual promiscuity. Even more than the "it was once a term of endearment" argument, this seems to be adopting the medieval as an authority for present immoral behaviour. Viewed objectively, this is striking, since the "medieval" in modern parlance represents backwardness and barbarism. That today's use should wish to emulate "medieval" practices or to accept these practices as legitimising their own is quite amazing, given the long history of modern disparagement of the Middle Ages.
Viewed somewhat less objectively, the modern representations of the medieval in the two examples above are truly appalling. Note that I have placed the word medieval in inverted commas above where it does not strictly indicate the historical Middle Age. In other words, the "medieval" may refer to the "backward", as it is often used today, or to an inaccurate unhistorical representation of the Middle Ages, such as the Abercrombie & Fitch catalogy refers. Where did they get the idea that adultery was "socially acceptable" in the Middle Ages? This is a Middle Ages that reflects their own fantasy rather than historical reality. Nevertheless, there is an explanation for this fantasy, one that is perhaps large than I can deal with in this entry. The clue is the word "chivalry" on their cover. Most likely, they mean the word in its most inclusive sense, encompassing notions of courtly love. Since C.S. Lewis made adultery a central component of courtly love in The Allegory of Love, this practice has often been regarded as synonymous with adultery, at least in definitions widely available on the internet. Lewis's views have been widely discredited; see, for instance, Larry Benson's remarks in Courtly Love and Chivalry in the Later Middle Ages. But it remains widely influential (I often see it in student essays). More could be said about this, but I believe it's a separate topic.
My larger point is that both this and Michele Ames's justification of the use of "cunt" by past usage during the Middle Ages re-makes the medieval to serve modern in ways that are unconvincing but apparently credible enough to have social power. That the medieval can have such power is encouraging; that it should be used to support immoral practices is not. What, then, is the social power of the authentic Middle Ages?
Comments:
Post a Comment
 |
|