Welcome to the NEW HistoryExplained.Com

25. Literacy and Knowledge

August 2003

panderson

Subject: literacy and knowledge

Posted on: 02/02/2003

Hello Mr. Maurer ...

I would like (if possible) to understand better what is the role of literacy and knowledge in your historical model. I suppose that they have a huge influence over history, for example :

1)Illiterate peasants endure more suffering than literate citizens and can be cheated more easily.

2)People are less ready to revolt if there isn't an available convincing alternative model - ideology to the current system.

What's your opinion about this topic?

Thank you very much.

Replies

davidmaurer

Subject: Re: literacy and knowledge

Posted on: 02/04/2003

Hi Panderson, this is another very good question. In this explanation of history the switch to market distribution of food led to the development of modern society. I left out most of the details of how this came about, primarily because it would take hundreds of pages to include them. One of the most important is the affect of literacy and education. When the peasants become responsible for marketing their production, it becomes necessary for them to read and calculate. They must be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide in order to figure prices and payments. They must be able to read in order to know what is happening in the markets and understand the many factors that effect prices. As the society becomes more market oriented, workers and consumers also need to know what is happening around them. This requires education.

Education is the kind of thing that tends to promote itself. The more people know, the more they want to know. Once curiosity is awakened, there is no telling where it will lead. When people are able to read all of the sudden they want to read the Bible or the Koran. They want to understand religion. They want to understand the government. It seems that at the beginning of the modern world, the more they understand, the less they like the way their world is organized.

Ordinary people start thinking for themselves, and they start protesting. They begin to demand changes and reforms. The Protestant Reformation was one result. Demands for political reform is another. The old forms of social organization are no longer satisfactory. The modern world slowly begins to develop. It is fairly easy to see that the spread of education is a very important factor in the origin of modern society. When you look for the reasons for the increase in education that is slightly harder to see. It is the development of the market economy.

panderson

Subject: Re: literacy and knowledge

Posted on: 02/05/2003

Ok ... I would like to understand more ... 1)What is the role of classical heritage in your model (Greek democracy and Roman law)? This happened before the birth of market based societies. 2)What is the role of religions in your model? Islam and Confucianism seemed to favour narrow-mindedness. Protestantism seemed to favour innovation. Are religions independent variables or are they just subordinate to society? 3)Is it right to affirm that for centuries masses didn't dare to overthrow their societies simply because they didn't yet discovered or import from abroad the ideals of democracy, Marxism, French revolution, American revolution, nationalism, etc... (just for lack of knowledge)? Do you know super-hawk conservative editorialist Victor Davis Hanson? In his “Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power” the realm of economy is a by-product of the realm of ideas. He has really different views from you about Palestine and Iraq too ...

Bye

davidmaurer

Subject: Re: literacy and knowledge

Posted on: 02/09/2003

1. Actually I do believe that classical Athens was a market economy oligarchic society. Most farmers were independent. They did not have to turn over their surplus to aristocrats and it was not all taken from them as taxes by the state. They sold their surplus food through a market system. Sparta was definitely aristocrat peasant. The Helots were the peasants and the Spartans were the aristocrats. Thebes was aristocratic. Some of the other city-states were probably also oligarchic. Some were probably in a gray area that was a little of both.

Phoenicians were always known for their commerce. I tried to find out if that included market distribution of food, but none of the books answered that question. Also I tried to nail down when or if Rome used market distribution of food and was unsuccessful. In any case the market economies of the classical age died out. The world was not yet ready for them.

2. In this world almost everything changes and evolves. That includes religions. During its glory days of the 9th to 15th centuries Islam was one of the most tolerant and open-minded religions. The Arabic Islam of today is different. The Arabs were conquered by the Turks. Hammered by the British and French, and totally humiliated by the Israelis. This kind of experience often leaves bad effects. Their religion seems to have closed in upon itself in a tight defensive ball. It is now close minded and intolerant. Eventually, the Arabs will flourish once again, and Islam will probably recover its openness.

Confucianism was specifically designed for aristocrat peasant society. It lays down the best and most successful rules of behavior for the different classes in this kind of society. It helped to make China the most prosperous of all aristocratic peasant societies. In a modified form, I think it could be successfully adapted to the modern world.

In the early modern world Protestantism definitely was a source of reform and innovation. I never really understood this. The ideology seems to be fundamentalist and close minded, but the results are undeniable. Protestants led the way in developing the modern world and especially the industrial revolution.

Are religions independent variables or are they just subordinate to society? You are asking a very difficult question here. I would say both, which just means that I don’t have a good answer.

3. There were gigantic numbers of peasant revolts in aristocrat peasant societies. Sometimes they started out quite successful, but they never led anywhere. The aristocrats always reestablished control. Successful peasant leaders, some of whom were educated, could never institute a new form of society. I believe that this is evidence that new forms of society evolve slowly out of social and economic changes.

4. I never heard of Victor Davis Hanson until now. I once took a class titled The Intellectual History of Europe. The professor and I did not get along at all. He believed that ideas led the way in change and development. I read the books and listened to everything he had to say, but I just couldn’t buy it. What he believed was cause and effect did not seem that way to me, and still doesn’t.

I believe that real social change takes place slowly through an evolutionary process. As the society is changing thinkers will come up with new ideas and that is part of the continuing change. But no philosopher can expound new ideas to a stable society and have that society change its most basic form to reflective his thinking.

anonymous

Subject: Re: literacy and knowledge

Posted on: 02/09/2003

Thanks Mr. Maurer...

I have understood ... Realm of ideas is a by-product of realm of economy. That's it. Anyway It could be interesting to continue to explore the “human” factor (despite its subordination).

What about cultural differences? Do they have a substantial impact in the development and achievement of a successful DMS?

davidmaurer

Subject: Re: literacy and knowledge

Posted on: 02/11/2003 4:43 AM

I should probably clarify something here. My primary interest is when societies change from one category to another. I believe that kind of change is governed by population growth and economics. But societies change all the time. Most change happens within the same general category.

A gigantic amount of change occurred during the thousands of years of tribal and aristocrat peasant society. Oligarchic society is especially a time of change. Countries in the late stage of oligarchic society are very different than they were in the beginning stage. Democratic market society is so new that there hasn’t been much time for change within this category yet, but I expect it to last for thousands of years. In that period of time there will be a massive number of changes. Many of them may well be linked to the economy in some way, but there are many other factors that are also important, family structure, religion, leadership, foreign relations, ecology, technology, new ideas, etc, etc, etc. I would never say that all social change is dependent on the economy.

I do believe that culture is very important. That is why we have different nations; we have different cultures. Italians are very proud of Italian culture, and so they should be. The same is true for the French, Chinese, Mexicans, and everybody else. All countries that are democratic market societies will have to follow the basic rules for how democracy works and for how a market economy works, or there will be problems. But those are very basic rules. They leave room for lots and lots of variation. This variety is culture.

Let me use food as an analogy. In this regard, all human bodies function pretty much the same. Everyone needs a similar amount of calories, vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids, etc. If the body doesn’t get what it needs, there will be problems. But there are lots of different foods and lots of different ways to get what is necessary. Different cultures have different cuisines. Different people have different tastes and preferences. So long as they get the basic requirements this is not a problem. Different people can eat different foods.

There are many different ways to run a democratic government. There are many different ways to operate a market economy. The same is true for health care, criminal law, marriage and divorce, religion, farming, immigration, etc. etc. As long as a country doesn’t violate the requirements of the form of society that it is using, all of these things can be regulated according to their own culture.

Here is an example of the problems that can arise if the basic rules are broken. Aristocrat peasant society is characterized by a low degree of personal freedom. In accordance with this, they often had restrictions on marriage. Many aristocratic societies had arranged marriages. Others had rules where aristocrats were not supposed to marry commoners. Or there might be rules where a person was supposed to marry within their clan or whatever.

Democratic market society is characterized by a high degree of personal freedom. Consensual marriage to pretty much anyone is the general rule. In a small number of cases arranged marriages may work, but for the most part this system must be abandoned sometime during the oligarchic transition. In England it used to be that aristocrats couldn’t marry commoners. This rule has now been pretty much abandoned except for the royal family, where it is still enforced. This has caused problems. If you don’t believe me, just ask Prince Charles.

This does not mean that all democratic market societies have to have identical institutions of marriage. There is still room for cultural variations. But there cannot be a major systematic violation of the general requirement for a high degree of personal freedom.

Do cultural differences have a substantial impact in the development and achievement of democratic market society? I think it depends on how you define culture. Aristocrat peasant societies seem to be able to make the transition easier than tribal or aristocrat tribal societies. Although, it is still very difficult.

It would seem like countries whose traditional culture had a fairly large amount of market exchange should make the transition more easily, but I’m not sure that the data fully supports this. Aristocratic China had more buying and selling than aristocratic Europe, but its traditional society was so firmly entrenched that it was slower to change.

On a lower level, say the cultural differences between Germany, France, and Italy, I don’t really see where it has had very much affect on the transition to modern society.

anonymous

Subject: Re: literacy and knowledge

Posted on: 02/12/2003

Thanks for compliments Mr. Maurer...

Anyway ... “ My primary interest is when societies change from one category to another. I believe that kind of change is governed by population growth and economics.”

I was thinking (in total humility) that “other” factors could have a big effect in delaying or freezing for centuries the social development. If the delay is really huge, what about considering in your model these factors as independent variables?

Example: Relation between sexes : if you forbid women to work, 50% of economic potential is gone (maybe more ...) The same reason can be applied to the past caste system in India (influence of religion). Natural environment can pose enormous bonuses or maluses to the social development: is it possible to develop a DMS in Tchad? And so on...

Now the real question ... What's the role of women emancipation in your model?

Bye.

davidmaurer

Subject: Re: literacy and knowledge

Posted on: 02/13/2003

In traditional societies, women usually did much more work than men. Cooking, cleaning, sewing, weaving, child raising, gardening, they did all the drudge work. The men went hunting and fishing. They also did the heavy work in the fields, which was seasonal. Men liked this arrangement, and it became traditional. Men were dominant, and women were supposed to submit, just like aristocrats were dominant, and peasants were supposed to submit.

In modern society, the peasants have been liberated. Well, so have the women. I can’t tell you the exact relationship between these two events, but I am sure that a connection exists. Probably it has to do with education, which we already talked about. The traditional roles became so entrenched that it takes a while for women’s liberation to flower, but it seems to happen in all democratic market societies. Maybe that is why the Latin Americans, the Arabs, and the people of Central Asia are so dubious about making the transition.

Yes, Chad will eventually have a DMS. Although the men there are probably doubtful about the idea also.