Schlain believes that gesture is still a very important part of speech. "...pantomime is far more descriptive than words could be." (41) Schlain talks a lot about the retina's rods and cones in this chapter. He attributes the rods to the feminine, and the cones to the masculine. He does this because while hunting, men would need to focus in on one thing. In order to do this, they would use mainly the cones, or the color detecting cells in the eye, to detect movement in the brush. (41)
Because a listener must engage a speaker with his eyes, except in the case of radio and telephone, Schlain believes that there is still a part of the feminine influence on speaking. "The invention of writing completely upset this balance." (Schlain 42) Because there are no visual clues to help the reader understand what the writer is saying, the reader must completely rely on the context of the word. Schlain compares speech to music, and since music appreciation is mostly a right hemisphere action, he states that listening to a speaker is a feminine action as well. (42)
At the end of the chapter, Schlain seems to repeat himself. He talks about how "writing involves the muscles of only one side of the body." (44) Since most people are right handed, this means that the left hemisphere, or the masculine hemisphere, is being used. I like what how he concluded this chapter however. "Placing the pen in the fighting hand etches aggression into the written word..." (Schlain 44) Schlain finally wraps up his argument by saying, "The triumphant march of literacy that began five thousand years ago conquered the right-brain values, and with them, the Goddess. Patriarchy and misogyny have been the inevitable result." (44) By saying this, he thinks that the art of writing has killed feminine values, and that patriarchy, or a man first society, and misogyny, or the hatred of women, were the result.
Analysis: Schlain's ethos was pretty weak in this chapter. He said some things that weren't common knowledge, and then didn't source them. He also said some things that were complete opinion and tried to use them as fact, such as "reading between the lines is a far more difficult exercise than evaluating the nonverbal clues of speech." (42) I thought his logos was pretty good up until the end of the chapter. To claim that writing has killed feminine values is purely fantasy. If writing is an art, and the feminine hemisphere is supposed to be the artistic one, where is the logic behind that claim? His pathos was very strong. He used this appeal perfectly. He said that writing has killed feminine values just to get a reaction from the reader.
My question to you is what do you think about the last two sentences of Schlain's chapter 5? "The triumphant march of literacy that began five thousand years ago conquered the right-brain values, and with them, the Goddess. Patriarchy and misogyny have been the inevitable result.
Scientifically the triumphant of literacy may dominate the right brain; however, to say that literacy (the ability to read and write) also conquered the Goddess may be a stretch. I don’t think it is the fact that people learned how to read and write, I think it is what was actually recorded. And the actual content of writing may have been a part of the rise of patriarchy. But I agree with Jason, for Schlain just to state that writing killed feminine values may be a little drastic.
ReplyDeleteTo my understanding of how the brain works Shlain sounds completely ignorant to me in his argument, especially referring to the last two sentences. He claims that the side of the brain an individual uses is based on sex. According to what I have learned about the workings of the brain, all people use both side of their brain. Most people use the left or right side dominantly, but this is determined not by sex. To my knowledge the explanation for which side of the brain you are dominant in is mostly connected to heredity but has nothing to do with the gender of that individual. Both males and females are left handed and right handed representing dominance in the left or right atmosphere of the brain. When Shlain claims that "the triumphant march of literacy that began five thousand years ago conquered the right-brain values.", he under-rides his point that literacy is connected to males, causing his argument in my opinion to fall apart.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Marissa is saying but I also think that literacy was going to evolve eventually over time. It just so happened that it happened at this time and to say that males created this literacy is completely ignorant. I feel like everything Shlain says has to do with males being this superior figure but they wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it wasn't for a female nurturing them to become the person they are now. So to not even credit females in this finding makes me not believe his claims.
ReplyDeletei agree that although writing may be more of a left brain activity, it also involves art, and therefore the right brain as well. i can not say that the development killed feminine values. i believe writing and communication are common to all human beings whether they are male or female, and the claim the written language brought about patriarchy and misogyny just doesn't make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThe whole time while I was reading this chapter I couldn't get over what Schlain says about writing with your right hand and how it effects the left side of your brain. He says writing involves only one side of the brain. (Schlain 44) As mentioned above by Jason, he also states that "Placing the pen in the fighting hand etches aggression into the written word" which is using the male-dominate left side of the brain. (44) Well what about people who use their left hand to write? Or people who are ambidextrous? I quick searched google for some answers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/182255/left_handed_vs_right_handed_pg2.html?cat=5
In this article it states that males are 3 times more likely to be left-handed. Which means they are using their right-side, the feminine side, more. The article also states that those who are left-handed are that way because of birth defects. They are more likely to have mental illness. Research shows that in the Prehistoric age, that most men were left handed and gave them fighting advantages. Right-handedness evolved in time, independent of culture.
So this article basically refutes almost everything Schlain is saying about writing conquering feminine values. I am not sure where to go from here.
Shlain keeps repeating this idea that writing has killed feminine values, but I still don't see exactly where he is coming from. He doesn't seem to explain his reasoning very well. The basis for his entire argument is that only the hunters would use the left hemispheres of their brains, which is associated with reading and writing. He makes a leap from this statement to saying that feminine values were suppressed as a result. Therefore, it's hard for me to believe his, to use Marissa's word, "drastic" claim that writing brought on the rise of patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteI will have to agree that with writing came many different ways of degrading females. However, many different people have had to go through that, such as the African Americans whenever they were prosecuted. Even though I think that this statement may have something to do with the rise of the patriarchy system, I don't think that is was completely responsible. I think all of the things we have discussed so far have each taken their own part and equally had a part to do with the downfall of the appreciation of females.
ReplyDeleteHilary brings up a good point. I think Schlain's arguments that the right brain is the feminine side even though men are more likely to be left handed is kind of backwards. I can understand why Schlain says this because men were the hunters, and usually held the spear in the right hand, which was controlled by the left brain.
ReplyDeleteThanks to Jason for his summary and rhetorical analysis. I think there are connections between writing, misogyny, and patriarchy. I see these connections in the fact that historically, women have not only been denied literacy but also have been in many periods and places either completely excluded from what is recorded or represented or portrayed as devalued, diminished, less than men, evil, what Simone de Beauvoir would call "Othered."
ReplyDeleteBut, from a rhetorical perspective, I would rather see Schlain frame this as an interrogtive than a declaration.
I kept thinking about Plato while I was reading this chapter, his objection to writing. In The Phaedrus, Plato says, basically, that writing is a reductive form of communication and will cause a dumbing down of our thinking. Schain's reference to Sassure (p. 42) addresses this idea.
Hilary's questions are interesting, but I find some of the claims the article makes suspect. A .com source has a questionable ethos; its main goal is to make money. Schlain was a brain surgeon.
I think that most of Schlain's statements in this chapter lack ethos, yea it comes from him;but his staements are more opinionated instead of facts like one of my classmates stated above. Not saying I don't believe him because I can also understand why Schlain said that men back then were hunting because they carried the spears with right hand and that's associated with the left brain.
ReplyDeleteAs far as ethos goes... he's a brain surgeon so I feel like he knows what he is talking about. Biologically it makes total sense and this theory could be possible. We evolve physiologically to our environmental needs ultimately in order to ensure successful reproduction. If its more beneficial to have a strengthened left brain then it will prevail. When parts of the brain grow stronger over time other parts grow weaker, this is shown in autistic savants. We are as a society continually strengthening those neurological pathways for all of our day to day demanding left brain tasks. If the right brain embodies the goddess it makes total sense that since our society values the left brain more we would have a patriarchal society. If this is true then the only way to have equality among men and women is to value both the right and left brain equally and be in connection with them both.
ReplyDeleteI think the last two sentences of Schlain's chapter 5 would be his statement of ideology for this book. His whole reason for writing the book, which I find extremely ironic, is that literacy diminished the role of women in society. I honestly do not believe literacy diminished the role of women, but Schlain has made good arguments in relation to the brain. I also think his use of the word misogyny is completely unwarranted. I know I for one definitely do not hate women. And to think society as a whole hates women is ridiculous, if men hated women the human race would die out.
ReplyDelete