5 ms·

1. This is an on-going debate to a certain degree (I mainly have encountered it via Phillipe Ariès's Centuries of Childhood). But I have never bought the argume

1. This is an on-going debate to a certain degree (I mainly have encountered it via Phillipe Ariès's Centuries of Childhood). But I have never bought the argument that childhood is a modern invention. If you actually read primary sources from the period it is abundantly clear that parents sought to protect their children, that they treated children as different from adults, and that children were expected to behave in a manner different from adults. To me, that's a childhood, albeit one that looks very different from modern norms due to the existence of widespread child labor, etc. 2. It's too strong of a claim to say that medieval or early modern warriors suffered from CTE (mostly because retroactive diagnosis has a terrible track record) but I think it's very reasonable to say that warriors of this period suffered from severe psychological and physical distress that derived directly from their training. Likewise, you're leaving out the fact that nobles hunted and rode on horseback (with no helmet!) on a daily basis and that these are exceptionally dangerous occupations by modern standards. 3. Smallpox might last a matter of weeks as an active illness. But it is permanently disfiguring. Elizabeth I is just the most well-documented of what we can imagine were literally millions of people who suffered trauma from smallpox scars. Similarly, many illnesses of the period (like malaria, polio, scrofula, etc) were chronic. As for gangrenous limbs, Henry VIII suffered from a wound (from recreational jousting no less) that ultimately killed him via a leg ulcer, but it took years of agonizing pain to do so. Maybe not gangrene, but the point remains that a world of sharp objects + no antibiotics is no fun for anyone. 4. It's very difficult for me to imagine that the pain of losing a child ever really goes away, even if you live in a world where it's commonplace. Likewise, the evidence about children not being considered "fully human" until age 1 relies on naming practices. But it ignores things like murder prosecutions for infanticide which were widespread in the period - if babies weren't considered fully human, why did courts care if they were killed? And finally, most childhood mortality occurred after age 1, regardless. Edit: I mostly agree with your critique of the OP, by the way. But I think the fact that we agree on humans from the past being more or less like us conflicts with your points about parents in the past being relatively un-concerned about the loss of a child, etc.

froasty 8y ago
1. Do you include adolscence within childhood? Because that might be where we're disagreeing. How would you define childhood? 2. I don't think a comparison between cultures where horse-riding is fundamental to one where it is primarily a leisure activity makes much sense when it comes to estimations of danger. Yes, hunts could result in injuries; I don't disagree there. However, if attrition was severe enough to impede the function of the martial culture, it wouldn't be actively propagated. 3. Yes, disfigurements and scarring would be common in the aftermath of epidemics, but in those situations, it's so common that to form cultural persecuting complexes around it is difficult to justify. Lepers, on the other hand... 4. That's really my entire point: the reason it's so hard for you to imagine is because, if you live in the United States, the entire existence of death has become divorced from culture and daily existence. It's an aberration and a taboo. In a culture where death during childhood is common, there are cultural forms that account for it. That doesn't mean that it is or isn't a loss, but that it accomodates and integrates that event within a broader chain of being. As far as judicial injunctions against infanticide go, early mortality is incidental to life, not fundamental. Actively destroying a potential person, particularly within a truly local culture, when it isn't already part of the folkways, is of course going to result in reprisal. However the very existence of cultures that practiced exposure shows that it isn't fundamental to the human condition to viscerally value the lives of infants unconditionally. As far as PTSD goes, it's largely about being unable to cope with a traumatic event. In a functional society, it seems unlikely to me that PTSD strictly as a pathology surrounding child loss would be a thing--and the sociology surrounding it as I've read it supports that assertion. I really think our disagreement resides in our perceptions of how durable/fragile humans can be under duress. I think humans are especially resilient, particularly if given adequate cultural coping mechanisms within a culture.
- benbreen 8y ago
  Interesting discussion here, and I certainly don't disagree that humans are resilient. All I'll add (re: point 4) is that I literally spent 2-3 months translating letters sent by Portuguese soldiers stationed in 17th century Angola as part of my PhD research. Those guys were among the most deeply unhappy individuals I've ever encountered in an archive. They were completely unable to cope with the severity of disease and death all around them. I think they're more of the norm than many recognize, because most of us don't spend time reading through primary source letters in archives. I think that spending a lot of my mental life in the 17th century makes me fairly well placed to imagine what it's like to lose a child in that world, and I really don't see what you'r arguing here reflected in the archives. If anyone reading this is interested, btw, the depiction of a fictional Thomas Cromwell's loss of a child in Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall struck me as incredibly well-observed and accurate. I really loved that part of the book.

froasty 8y ago

1. Do you include adolscence within childhood? Because that might be where we're disagreeing. How would you define childhood? 2. I don't think a comparison between cultures where horse-riding is fundamental to one where it is primarily a leisure activity makes much sense when it comes to estimations of danger. Yes, hunts could result in injuries; I don't disagree there. However, if attrition was severe enough to impede the function of the martial culture, it wouldn't be actively propagated. 3. Yes, disfigurements and scarring would be common in the aftermath of epidemics, but in those situations, it's so common that to form cultural persecuting complexes around it is difficult to justify. Lepers, on the other hand... 4. That's really my entire point: the reason it's so hard for you to imagine is because, if you live in the United States, the entire existence of death has become divorced from culture and daily existence. It's an aberration and a taboo. In a culture where death during childhood is common, there are cultural forms that account for it. That doesn't mean that it is or isn't a loss, but that it accomodates and integrates that event within a broader chain of being. As far as judicial injunctions against infanticide go, early mortality is incidental to life, not fundamental. Actively destroying a potential person, particularly within a truly local culture, when it isn't already part of the folkways, is of course going to result in reprisal. However the very existence of cultures that practiced exposure shows that it isn't fundamental to the human condition to viscerally value the lives of infants unconditionally. As far as PTSD goes, it's largely about being unable to cope with a traumatic event. In a functional society, it seems unlikely to me that PTSD strictly as a pathology surrounding child loss would be a thing--and the sociology surrounding it as I've read it supports that assertion. I really think our disagreement resides in our perceptions of how durable/fragile humans can be under duress. I think humans are especially resilient, particularly if given adequate cultural coping mechanisms within a culture.

benbreen 8y ago
Interesting discussion here, and I certainly don't disagree that humans are resilient. All I'll add (re: point 4) is that I literally spent 2-3 months translating letters sent by Portuguese soldiers stationed in 17th century Angola as part of my PhD research. Those guys were among the most deeply unhappy individuals I've ever encountered in an archive. They were completely unable to cope with the severity of disease and death all around them. I think they're more of the norm than many recognize, because most of us don't spend time reading through primary source letters in archives. I think that spending a lot of my mental life in the 17th century makes me fairly well placed to imagine what it's like to lose a child in that world, and I really don't see what you'r arguing here reflected in the archives. If anyone reading this is interested, btw, the depiction of a fictional Thomas Cromwell's loss of a child in Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall struck me as incredibly well-observed and accurate. I really loved that part of the book.