tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post854129856136270501..comments2024-03-10T20:46:19.274-04:00Comments on In the Middle: More thoughts about the MAA in AZ, or why I'm not quittingCord J. Whitakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06224143153295429986noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-25227959974880055612010-08-13T05:29:16.034-04:002010-08-13T05:29:16.034-04:00Dear Aunt Pansy
What a great topic!
My own gut ...Dear Aunt Pansy<br /><br />What a great topic! <br /><br />My own gut view is that yes the lot of women improved after the 12th century in the short term because in my neck of the woods everybody’s lot improved for a short while – the 12th century was such a bloody, awful time. (For men and women you could substitute Jews and Christians too). I know that is a parochial answer not addressing the bigger issues which lie behind your question, but still …. It also seems to me that the local processes which emerge into writing not long after the twelfth century on the whole and with many caveats gave women a better deal than those that came later (I am thinking about court records of various kinds), but I don’t want to invent the 13th century as a new golden age of women – more I think it is to do with changes in the register and organisation of records which gradually refine and bring writing more and more in tune with certain kinds of patriarchal expectations – and to do with an expansion and refinement of the elite public sphere which increasingly impinges on local custom and popular public spheres. <br /><br />On the whole I think the continuing and progressive diminution of the public status of women across the middle ages and into the modern era has to do with public processes and not the intimate or economic choices of individual or even groups of women (whether to have kids/sex/work etc)- as so much of the secondary medieval literature would have it. Sure there is a continuum between public and private – but it is generally hard for the poor to fight their impoverishment on their own – I don’t really believe those heroic tales of individualism which argue otherwise. I am a systems person, I guess. That is where the connection between then and now comes in.<br /><br />Anyway – thanks for raising the topic here. (have I guessed your identity correctly, I wonder?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-86020252078247330322010-08-12T22:10:26.928-04:002010-08-12T22:10:26.928-04:00Thank heavens school is starting soon. It'll ...Thank heavens school is starting soon. It'll be a delight to only have to deal with students who don't come to class on Thursday because they already started drinking on Wednesday. And to chair this committee, that committee, and the other committee, and to perhaps get some of those things done that didn't get done all summer because instead we worried endlessly about whether or not we wanted anything more to do with the MAA. On the other hand, there will be exciting things upcoming. A new Executive Director in a little less than a year, a new set of by-laws, perhaps some insurance for directors and councilors and officers to prevent them being threatened with the individual financial costs of law-suits for failing to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities? more supportive attitudes towards grad students? better turn-around for submissions to Speculum? some new and (even more) exciting topics for ITM -- like where is the middle of the middle ages -- and did women's position get better or worse after the twelfth century? We will live through this year; we may even live through academic processions in 95degree heat in black gowns in the next weeks. I wonder if those blue ones are cooler? <br /><br />Aunt PansyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-90702570110545276962010-08-12T10:20:02.504-04:002010-08-12T10:20:02.504-04:00Me & blogger, we are not friends. This post w...Me & blogger, we are not friends. This post was meant to precede my last comment:<br /><br />Wow, I’m going to have to rethink my decision to stay with the MAA: while I’d like to believe ADM’s generous reading of the cfp extension is correct (and I’m sure it holds a great deal of truth), I’m pretty stunned at what now appears to be a concerted effort to ignore those voices of conscientious dissent within the organizing body. One of the many terrific points made by Green, Newhauser, and Voaden is the potential for financial damage that would arise if conference participants withdraw from the AZ meeting in protest: “ [the MAA] may in fact experience a loss of revenue if the conference is held in Arizona anyway because of those members who will not want to attend a conference here.” Two weeks later, this backstop effort to make the conference a “success” through a cfp extension is yet another sign of someone’s decision to go forward with this meeting, no matter the (long-term) costs to the MAA. Talk about fiduciary irresponsibility. And Bruce V. is undoubtedly right: the new cfp is unlikely to reclaim anyone who objects to SB 1070. Sigh.Holly Crockernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-3900881053158657242010-08-12T10:03:34.601-04:002010-08-12T10:03:34.601-04:00And let me just say this: if you have a membershi...And let me just say this: if you have a membership vote that is as close as this one, and you know those who oppose a measure are motivated in their opposition—i.e., they won’t participate if you go ahead with said action—it is often more prudent, if less democratic, to heed the strong show of opposition over those who express no opinion, or who prefer the status quo based on reasons they declare to be apolitical (they think it will be a hassle, they don’t want to offend the organizers, they are afraid of financial loss, they worry about the precedent it might set, or they don’t want to be involved in any kind of political statement). A democratic organization is a little different than a democratic polity in this respect: it cannot operate by strict majority rule, since a voluntary (and dues paying) minority can always withdraw its support from the organization. When political morality is involved on the one side—and especially when it is explicitly disavowed on the other—a governing body might best govern were it to consider the different dimensions of objection involved in a close vote.Holly Crockernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-36592982742884180902010-08-12T09:56:38.875-04:002010-08-12T09:56:38.875-04:00Wow, I’m going to have to rethink my decision to s...Wow, I’m going to have to rethink my decision to stay with the MAA: while I’d like to believe ADM’s generous reading of the cfp extension is correct (and I’m sure it holds a great deal of truth), I’m pretty stunned at what now appears to be a concerted effort to ignore those voices of conscientious dissent within the organizing body. One of the many terrific points made by Green, Newhauser, and Voaden is the potential for financial damage that would arise if conference participants withdraw from the AZ meeting in protest: “ [the MAA] may in fact experience a loss of revenue if the conference is held in Arizona anyway because of those members who will not want to attend a conference here.” Two weeks later, this backstop effort to make the conference a “success” through a cfp extension is yet another sign of someone’s decision to go forward with this meeting, no matter the (long-term) costs to the MAA. Talk about fiduciary irresponsibility. [And let me just say this: if you have a membership vote that is as close as this one, and you know those who oppose a measure are motivated in their opposition—i.e., they won’t participate if you go ahead with said action—it is often more prudent, if less democratic, to heed the strong show of opposition over those who express no opinion, or who prefer the status quo based on reasons they declare to be apolitical (they think it will be a hassle, they don’t want to offend the organizers, they are afraid of financial loss, they worry about the precedent it might set, or they don’t want to be involved in any kind of political statement). A democratic organization is a little different than a democratic polity in this respect: it cannot operate by strict majority rule, since a voluntary (and dues paying) minority can always withdraw its support from the organization. When political morality is involved on the one side—and especially when it is explicitly disavowed on the other—a governing body might best govern were it to consider the different dimensions of objection involved in a close vote]. And Bruce V. is undoubtedly right: the new cfp is unlikely to reclaim anyone who objects to SB 1070. Sigh.Holly Crockernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-42313562536841277712010-08-12T08:26:16.229-04:002010-08-12T08:26:16.229-04:00@Connie Berman and Aunt Pansy -- I was going to sa...@Connie Berman and Aunt Pansy -- I was going to say that such things can be easily tracked down by the LISTSERV owners, but it's probably easier than that, given that the call is posted twice on the MAA site, once on the new blog and once on the main site. As a member, I think it's probably something the EC should look into.<br /><br />But apart from that, my personal hat would like to give the person who wrote and posted it the benefit of the doubt and think that they felt they had to do whatever they could to make the meeting successful, and were also listening to the comments many of us were making about tone. From the MAA end, this has got to feel like a fiasco, especially to those who want to continue the meeting. Perhaps it's a purely cynical move -- you all would know better than I, since you know the inner workings of the EC and Council. But I would like to think it's just a desperate attempt to patch things. <br /><br />The sad thing is, if this is motivated out of feelings of 'my legacy', I think a lot of us are going to remember more that the meeting was held at all, rather than whether it was successful or not. <br /><br />BTW -- let's not plan for Florida in 2012 -- They've just proposed laws that are harsher than AZ's!Another Damned Medievalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05231085915472400163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-43440764428199868712010-08-12T06:19:43.088-04:002010-08-12T06:19:43.088-04:00It sounds like the Executive Committee of the MAA ...It sounds like the Executive Committee of the MAA should fire the person who sent out a letter without their authority.<br /><br />Aunt PansyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-20058981761323881792010-08-12T06:17:59.549-04:002010-08-12T06:17:59.549-04:00While maybe the tone of the statement was less off...While maybe the tone of the statement was less offensive than the group-speak of the earlier announcement,the new call for papers was sent out without the authority of the Executive Committee. If asked, would we have agreed to send it out at all? I surely don't know, but I do not like having this happen. <br /><br />Connie Berman, UIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-17755006511690032802010-08-11T11:20:53.767-04:002010-08-11T11:20:53.767-04:00If they have lost a lot of papers, do they think t...If they have lost a lot of papers, do they think they will get the numbers back up via presentations on these subjects? I'd imagine there is major overlap between folks who work on such topics and those who don't want to go to a meeting in AZ.<br /><br />They HAVE lost a lot of the program committee, which isn't very promising.Bruce Venardenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-18453076623166531052010-08-11T10:06:03.927-04:002010-08-11T10:06:03.927-04:00Thanks for this, Jeffrey. Your leadership on this...Thanks for this, Jeffrey. Your leadership on this matter remains vital. I’m not quitting either, for many of the reasons you capture so eloquently in your current post. The other day I wrote a response to Eileen’s powerful reflection on her growing dissatisfaction (which I guess blogger ate while I was off doing something else); there I hoped that medievalists who care about issues of tolerance, equality, and antidiscrimination would ultimately remain within the MAA, even if they boycott the meeting, and even if they cancel their membership this year to protest this racist law. If everyone who cares about these issues leaves the organization, the MAA will not—in order to reflect its membership—care about racism, minority groups, or group political action. I can’t fathom or abide the idea of going to Arizona (notwithstanding the fact that I live in a state that has been under a NAACP boycott since 1999—and I’m happy to say more about that, too), mainly because this issue is still being debated and decided. There does seem to be space for impact, and though I agree with anonymous that boycotts hurt the most dispossessed groups in a region, and that direct political action is far more critical than a boycott, I also think that everyday actions can be very powerful. I say “no” to this meeting, and I want the MAA to continue to hear that from their members.<br /><br />best, h <br /><br />p.s., I just read Bruce V's excellent post while I was trying to sort out posting my own thoughts; though I come to a different conclusion, I would also like to agree with the frustration he expresses. I found the extension of the cfp a bit silly, and potentially even more troubling: while I *hope* it is making room for more political engagement, it also could be that they've lost a bunch of papers, so the meeting needs new participation to remain sizable.Holly Crockernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-82642583346662124432010-08-11T09:38:55.850-04:002010-08-11T09:38:55.850-04:00Jeff's thoughtful and generous commentary does...Jeff's thoughtful and generous commentary does not convince me. I think in retrospect there might have been ways to go to Tempe that would have disappointed me but made me reluctant to quit the MAA. But the two communications we've gotten -- one stating the decision and the second a new CFP -- are disengaged, mendacious, and hypocritical.<br /> <br />The first announcement that there would be no change of venue did not even, as Jeff points out, have the nerve to say why some members wanted out of Arizona. It fell back on democratic voting, although the leadership turned an advisory survey into a referendum. The result, if you do the math, was that 12% of the membership voted to go to Arizona. There is reason to be suspicious of democratic referenda, of course: think of California's Proposition 8. In any case, I would have had far less difficulty swallowing an announcement that said "We're a scholarly organization and like most such these days on the edge of bankruptcy, meaning that we can't really afford to pull out now. We have great respect for the preparation for the Tempe meeting cherished colleagues have done so far. We also recognize that many colleagues are deeply troubled by the idea of meeting in Tempe. With mixed feeling, we will push forward." <br /><br />Instead we got a mealy-mouthed statement about not wanting to engage in "politics." This is, of course, exactly what the new CFP does. It contains a list of sanctioned topics that are what many a critic would sneer are politically correct: "race [sic], ethnicity, immigration, tolerance, treatment of minority groups, protest against governmental policies judged unjust, and standards of judicial and legislative morality." Is the message here to say that we, the MAA, have actually heard of these things (even though it may still be the case that the brown people who make our hotel beds will be subjected to "Papers, please" on the way home from work)? Or is it that as privileged elites, we can talk about ethnic studies, now banned in Arizona schools (even though we had no plans to do so before)? And for heaven's sake: "legislative morality" is one thing in an unconstitutional pre-modern monarchy, quite another in a twenty-first century constitutional republic. There are, of course, connections, but if we didn't know that already, we haven't been paying attention since, at least, the publication of R.I. Moore's foundational The Formation of a Persecuting Society (1987).<br /><br />That's the real problem. I am worried that the majority (not all) of the members of the Academy's leadership aren't paying attention to scholarly trends or their interaction with the world we live in. In this case, I find their insouciance has required all sorts of pretzel-twisted logic to make going to Tempe not just inevitable but a fine teachable moment. Poppycock.Bruce Venardenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-3256668494387535362010-08-11T09:30:26.049-04:002010-08-11T09:30:26.049-04:00There is at least one EC member who won't be g...There is at least one EC member who won't be going to Tempe. There may be more.Bruce Venardenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-75366889197336782072010-08-11T09:12:08.789-04:002010-08-11T09:12:08.789-04:00Thanks, Jeffrey, for posting this (for all the rea...Thanks, Jeffrey, for posting this (for all the reasons Myra suggests above). Having a sense of the internal division within the Committee does provide some additional context for the surprisingly disengaged tone of the initial announcement. I did notice the difference between the initial announcement's phrase "in medieval society" and the CFP revision "issues at stake *in Arizona and* in medieval society" - the change is subtle, but it does signal that the MAA is not tone-deaf to to what its membership is thinking (and feeling). I'm still ambivalent about MAA - but you are making a good case for staying within the organization.Jonathan Hsynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-65224628384788662282010-08-11T08:47:17.704-04:002010-08-11T08:47:17.704-04:00Well said. I'm glad you brought up the point ...Well said. I'm glad you brought up the point that it seems some of the council did object in a way that I didn't and, as I said, the not knowing is something that makes me feel a little ill. I'm also glad you looked more carefully at the CFP than I did, because I am still so angry that I missed the reference to "some people finding it a moral issue". I shall update my response with this, and a reference to the post on MEDFEM-L, in which three of the local programme committee have resigned. It's a mess.Another Damned Medievalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05231085915472400163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-87024414965387697572010-08-11T08:33:47.248-04:002010-08-11T08:33:47.248-04:00Thanks, Jeffrey.
Love,
The BeastThanks, Jeffrey.<br /><br />Love,<br /><br />The BeastKarl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-45388005740046773872010-08-11T08:32:08.371-04:002010-08-11T08:32:08.371-04:00One more piece of evidence, from the MAA response ...One more piece of evidence, from the MAA response to "the General's" letter as published at Quod She (link in main post):<br /><br />"The decision to hold the meeting in Tempe does not mean that the Executive Committee has mandated (or could or would wish to mandate) attendance, even for officers. We have established that according to Massachusetts statute Councilors can participate in the meetings of Council by conference call. We have no idea how many members -- or officers -- will decide to attend the meeting in person."<br /><br />I think this is a roundabout way of stating that there are some EC members who have no intention of setting foot in the state.Jeffrey Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346504393740520542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-37308852705817228452010-08-11T08:26:57.615-04:002010-08-11T08:26:57.615-04:00Like Karl, Jeffrey, I thank you for this. You arti...Like Karl, Jeffrey, I thank you for this. You articulated some of my own responses that I'd not yet been able to think through to my own satisfaction. So you did for me. I'm happy to see what you say here. <br /><br />I share Karl's questions, too, seeking evidence that I don't have, even as I've sensed the split you describe here (but have worried that my sensing it was largely a product of my wanting it to be true).Myra Seamanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02785617479392033454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-55232539769082119132010-08-11T08:25:19.916-04:002010-08-11T08:25:19.916-04:00I didn't mean to imply a causal link between w...I didn't mean to imply a causal link between working versus racism and staying within the MAA; I am arguing much more broadly for a link between staying within the MAA and a responsibility for altering what the institution thinks itself capable of and accountable for.<br /><br />Re: disagreement within the governance structure, I was thinking mainly of Constance Berman, who as far as I can tell has been leading the internal charge against holding the meeting in AZ. Some public evidence <a href="http://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com/2010/06/important-update-re-maa-in-az.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. From private email though I know that she is not alone. <br /><br />Most councillors have, as is evident, been publicly quiet on the issue, though.Jeffrey Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346504393740520542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-78375993416998429302010-08-11T08:13:01.818-04:002010-08-11T08:13:01.818-04:00Thanks for this. Very well said. I'm not sure ...Thanks for this. Very well said. I'm not sure yet, however, of the causal link between working against racism etc and remaining an MAA member.<br /><br />I also have to raise a question about this:<br /><i> Yet what has been evident to me throughout this controversy's unfolding is that the Executive Committee is riven, that there has been a decision but not unanimity, that clearly some committee members have no intention of setting foot at the conference itself.</i><br />Is this evident to you bc of public discussions (here on the blog, for example, where Bruce Holsinger joined us in the initial ITM deliberations) or bc of conversations offline (which, since they were offline, can't be described here in any detail or at all)?Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.com