"Every context has a context", Generally speaking, Americans are not good at putting things in context. Most people seem to abide by what I call the "vacuum theory of history." That is pinpointing a specific time went everything went wrong. Whether it is the belief that the start of moral decline in the U,S. began when "they took prayer out of schools." Or more recently, the degradation of political discourse began when Trump came on the scene. Of course there are pivotal points in history, but all those pivotal points have a context. The current state of race relations in America has a four hundred year context that dates back to the pivotal point at Jamestown when the first enslaved Africans arrived. Understanding the context is complicated by the fact that each interpreter of history has his or her personal context through which they see and understand the world. Wendell Berry is no exception to the rule.
Well put, Dan. It's so easy to generalize and reduce history to salient or pivotal points but that does not easily lead to understanding. I'll be providing some of my own personal context on Chapter III in the hope of shedding a little light not only on where I'm coming from but also on possible paths forward.
Very good point, Dudley. Making generalizations is so much easier than considering the details of specific situations. I'm looking forward to reading your take on Ch. 3.
Dan, so glad to have you here. Yes, Berry is no exception to the rule, and I do believe there are aspects of what he says that any of us can take exception to.
I appreciate how you are digging into the context component of our generalizations and particulars. How that interpretation might even shift and change with time and more information that adds to the perspective. What I wonder, now, with reading more of this text and what you write is: are we so far away from specific events that we no longer understand any of the context but are reliant on a couple of paragraphs in a textbook of history (this is related to race relations). Have we lost so much of our own familial history that we cannot trace our own roots, understand our own involvement and participation or maybe that is impossible because we are that far removed, and we know nothing other than the separation that exists currently. Which then makes we wonder, is it possible to become so distant that we don't know why, and that distance begins to close because the history of separation is no longer relevant?
It is an honor to have you as a part of this conversation.
I am responding to this starting framing remark about Berry's overarching thinking-writing style "Berry does two things simultaneously. He clearly states and supports his point while also making it difficult for a general reader to understand." It's good for every reader to get clear at the get-go that reading any of Berry's works is NOT for the intellectually and spiritually lazy. You can be a slow reader, a long cogitator and perpetually reflective, but what you cannot be is unwilling to do the work he demands of his readers.
I think, Berry leads a path, the direction, but requires the reader to thoughtfully consider, even analyze what he shares. It is almost as if he does not want to persuade of his truth but wants the reader to learn to persuade their own truth. This requires a deep appreciation of what the individual stands for.
“Women are as human as men; if I dared I would say moreso. And they ought not to be denied any civil right.” Well it’s me, here to harp on what he says and doesn’t say about women again. I had nothing bookmarked in Chapter 1 but chapter 2 had four highlights, and they were about women. And I’ve been trying to wait until I have something nice to say if I’m going to say anything at all. I know he means well, but his context is making him pretty tone deaf about the experience of women. And this doesn’t have to be the case. It would not have been hard to do a little research? Or to become a little bit trauma-informed? And he is doing a lot of things wrong when he speaks about women, sexual assault, #metoo.
What you mentioned, Stacy, about the way Berry uses words, and how it can be difficult to read him? I appreciate how he connects each thought together, and how he brings you through his whole long train of thought that way. It’s rare to read anything like that. But because I see how he has the capacity to connect so many thoughts in a row—to keep chess moves in his head, if you will—it is therefore even more disappointing to me when he ignores or misses something very important. I guess that’s probably not fair, but I want to hold him to a higher standard because he has so often performed in ways that have met much higher standards than he is meeting for me in these chapters. My disappointment is in proportion to my admiration.
“In the absence apparently of all cultural restraint, women who have been assaulted or raped have no recourse but the courts of law. Or, by way of scandal, the news. Having been exploited by men, they then must exploit themselves by making their private humiliation public.” Oh, Wendell. The absolute queen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford did not exploit herself. She performed one of the most courageous acts on the behalf of all women everywhere and all Americans, by coming forward with her testimony. As Gisele Pelicot has showed, “It’s not for us to have shame, it’s for them.” What Gisele has also reminded us all (but this has been long known) is that the call is coming from inside the house, women are not safe in their own homes. He suggests in this chapter that rape is more of an urban problem, more of a thing that wouldn’t happen so much or didn’t happen so much when women (and men) were more tied to their households. I mean, I don’t know if he has ever been more wrong about anything.
And it’s not that “the abusive men ought to have been taught decent manners and a sense of responsibility when they were boys”. 2/9 of the highest court in the land (not to mention the office of president) suggests there are other reasons beyond lack of teaching manners to our children.
Farmworkers, if they are women, are exceptionally likely to be sexually assaulted. And systemic issues are key in why that is so. This took me about ten seconds to research (granted Berry would not have had this particular article when he wrote TNTBW but there was lots more information to be had dating earlier than this 2023 article). I know we cannot expect Wendell Berry to solve all world problems but I was hoping he would not do such a poor job in his treatment of the fact that actually women are people, *in an agricultural context. In his endeavor to have us see the complicated way *some pieces of this puzzle cannot be extricated from one another (men and race and land), I wish he would have seen gender. He did not, and the passing few sentences he does give to it are so off track. So, it makes it harder for me to absorb whatever else he is saying. I know he never stated this book to be about gender, but he pushes hard expecting us to see intersections of other kinds, it just seems impossible that he can drop the ball on the intersection of gender with all of the other intersections he is capable of entertaining. I’m pressing on with the book, but this is a hangup I’m owning right now.
I do think he has points about dispensability, about how certain work is perceived, and how that influences our approach to the land. But if he can’t tie in a little something about how *women are perceived as dispensable… I guess he sees rape as a modern thing (I believe I harped on the rape of enslaved women last time) that is due to poor upbringing (hi, blame mothers much?) and yeah this is just where I’m at. I keep saving my comment to drafts but it’s almost time for chapter 3 and I didn’t want to drop out of the conversation. But also not feeling my comment is at all in step with others so I get it if you all would rather not engage this one.
I need time to take this one in. But, in the meantime, I think LAProgressive is a reliable resource? I mean, I think we know Berry is old-fashioned, but I do not believe he splits the roles by gender ... gads, what do I know? I do remember the big 'to do' in 2019 (I linked that below). These are simply references I hope gives some background to the larger conversation of your comment.
The point being, I acknowledge your frustration. In this book, Berry talks about racism, without more than a passing comment about sexism, and even the prejudice of men v. women. He does offer a few glances, like he wants to dip a toe into a larger context but backs away just as quickly.
I'll try to formulate a larger response in the coming days. But in the meantime, as Berry frames the larger race conversation in the wrapping of agrarian communities and slavery, would he have been better served to give space to the treatment of black enslaved women beginning with the Civil War division of north and south? Would that have then naturally allowed a space to extend the conversation to more present times? Likewise, how do we feel about a white man giving any perspective to the treatment of women and what should that look like? I mean, I sort of shiver at the thought of any man telling me how I might feel/do feel/often feel, but that doesn't mean he can't put out some perspective with guardrails.
I chuckled at this line "Woe, above all, to the woman with small breasts or a muscular body or strong features." which describes exactly who is typing this comment. Ha!
I guess I'm not that surprised to learn more of his politics re: abortion and divorce. Also disappointing.
I didn't know about the "to do."
I agree, he offers a few glances, but I think he would have done better to leave women completely out of it than to say what he did. And yes, I would have hoped for him to treat gender as related to his thesis (it is) but not in passing comments. (I'd argue nobody was imposing any page limit on this man.) And not, as you say, to tell us how to feel. (Is he telling Black people how to feel?) But make his own observations (as long as he made some relevant ones.)
Don't forget this part of the article, "Thus, here is a fair warning: Do not expect any simplistic, immature, conventional treatment of women’s exploitation from Berry. To appreciate his approach you have to be open-minded, open to looking at a long-standing problem from a new perspective."
I wonder IF it is discouraging that a man that is 90 years old disappoints because he so often offers a distant approach to how he speaks (not) of women.
I wonder, is this lack of inclusivity that is bothersome stemming from the fact that he is well thought and we expect him to lead with clarity. Or, does it feel like he is invoking a sex-based heirarchy?
I’m having trouble approaching these questions. He says things that are harmful to survivors of gender-based violence. Did I get that across in my long comment? That’s where I’m stuck. Your questions seem aimed to help me past not being included, but that’s not where I’m stuck.
So I went back to the text to read your comment finally winding my way to Chapter IV. Sin, and an entry into the chapter using the Kavanaugh nomination. Yes, a drop of two pages which feels out of place because Berry does not continue with the analysis. Yes, he might have been better served to omit these pages. Poor examples, there are others he could have used. No reference is made that Ford (initially) tried to maintain silence (which is often what happens in sexual assault) before speaking out. Which in and of itself gives voice to the aggression women feel with speaking out, to be heard, even believed.
Sexual violence statistics says 1 in 5 women experience assault. I believe the number is higher.
So, what does that mean in reference to this book? In some respects, might Berry be steering (mostly) away from a topic that is a conversation in and of itself? Where is the conversation liability to try to speak about both - blackness and womanness - in a history of prejudice?
What, I think I understand anyway, is that Berry leads into the query of "public exposures" as to how "sin" is evaluated in current times. By such, he is tending to the (what I perceive) as more stringent boundaries expected from smaller communities that tend to teach within. I have in my notes: honor, knit.
Which is a long response back to say in the neighbor argument Berry makes, he places a significant blame on urban while not acknowledging that the same happens in rural. In other words, the 'not in my backyard' made be adding a foggy haze to the rose-colored glasses.
"Every context has a context", Generally speaking, Americans are not good at putting things in context. Most people seem to abide by what I call the "vacuum theory of history." That is pinpointing a specific time went everything went wrong. Whether it is the belief that the start of moral decline in the U,S. began when "they took prayer out of schools." Or more recently, the degradation of political discourse began when Trump came on the scene. Of course there are pivotal points in history, but all those pivotal points have a context. The current state of race relations in America has a four hundred year context that dates back to the pivotal point at Jamestown when the first enslaved Africans arrived. Understanding the context is complicated by the fact that each interpreter of history has his or her personal context through which they see and understand the world. Wendell Berry is no exception to the rule.
Well put, Dan. It's so easy to generalize and reduce history to salient or pivotal points but that does not easily lead to understanding. I'll be providing some of my own personal context on Chapter III in the hope of shedding a little light not only on where I'm coming from but also on possible paths forward.
What a challenge it is to offer paths forward and kudos for thinking of way to make a difference in how to have these conversations.
Very good point, Dudley. Making generalizations is so much easier than considering the details of specific situations. I'm looking forward to reading your take on Ch. 3.
Dan, so glad to have you here. Yes, Berry is no exception to the rule, and I do believe there are aspects of what he says that any of us can take exception to.
I appreciate how you are digging into the context component of our generalizations and particulars. How that interpretation might even shift and change with time and more information that adds to the perspective. What I wonder, now, with reading more of this text and what you write is: are we so far away from specific events that we no longer understand any of the context but are reliant on a couple of paragraphs in a textbook of history (this is related to race relations). Have we lost so much of our own familial history that we cannot trace our own roots, understand our own involvement and participation or maybe that is impossible because we are that far removed, and we know nothing other than the separation that exists currently. Which then makes we wonder, is it possible to become so distant that we don't know why, and that distance begins to close because the history of separation is no longer relevant?
It is an honor to have you as a part of this conversation.
I am responding to this starting framing remark about Berry's overarching thinking-writing style "Berry does two things simultaneously. He clearly states and supports his point while also making it difficult for a general reader to understand." It's good for every reader to get clear at the get-go that reading any of Berry's works is NOT for the intellectually and spiritually lazy. You can be a slow reader, a long cogitator and perpetually reflective, but what you cannot be is unwilling to do the work he demands of his readers.
Jody, so insightful and articulated so well.
I think, Berry leads a path, the direction, but requires the reader to thoughtfully consider, even analyze what he shares. It is almost as if he does not want to persuade of his truth but wants the reader to learn to persuade their own truth. This requires a deep appreciation of what the individual stands for.
“Women are as human as men; if I dared I would say moreso. And they ought not to be denied any civil right.” Well it’s me, here to harp on what he says and doesn’t say about women again. I had nothing bookmarked in Chapter 1 but chapter 2 had four highlights, and they were about women. And I’ve been trying to wait until I have something nice to say if I’m going to say anything at all. I know he means well, but his context is making him pretty tone deaf about the experience of women. And this doesn’t have to be the case. It would not have been hard to do a little research? Or to become a little bit trauma-informed? And he is doing a lot of things wrong when he speaks about women, sexual assault, #metoo.
What you mentioned, Stacy, about the way Berry uses words, and how it can be difficult to read him? I appreciate how he connects each thought together, and how he brings you through his whole long train of thought that way. It’s rare to read anything like that. But because I see how he has the capacity to connect so many thoughts in a row—to keep chess moves in his head, if you will—it is therefore even more disappointing to me when he ignores or misses something very important. I guess that’s probably not fair, but I want to hold him to a higher standard because he has so often performed in ways that have met much higher standards than he is meeting for me in these chapters. My disappointment is in proportion to my admiration.
“In the absence apparently of all cultural restraint, women who have been assaulted or raped have no recourse but the courts of law. Or, by way of scandal, the news. Having been exploited by men, they then must exploit themselves by making their private humiliation public.” Oh, Wendell. The absolute queen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford did not exploit herself. She performed one of the most courageous acts on the behalf of all women everywhere and all Americans, by coming forward with her testimony. As Gisele Pelicot has showed, “It’s not for us to have shame, it’s for them.” What Gisele has also reminded us all (but this has been long known) is that the call is coming from inside the house, women are not safe in their own homes. He suggests in this chapter that rape is more of an urban problem, more of a thing that wouldn’t happen so much or didn’t happen so much when women (and men) were more tied to their households. I mean, I don’t know if he has ever been more wrong about anything.
And it’s not that “the abusive men ought to have been taught decent manners and a sense of responsibility when they were boys”. 2/9 of the highest court in the land (not to mention the office of president) suggests there are other reasons beyond lack of teaching manners to our children.
https://theconversation.com/sexual-violence-is-a-pervasive-threat-for-female-farm-workers-heres-how-the-us-could-reduce-their-risk-204871
Farmworkers, if they are women, are exceptionally likely to be sexually assaulted. And systemic issues are key in why that is so. This took me about ten seconds to research (granted Berry would not have had this particular article when he wrote TNTBW but there was lots more information to be had dating earlier than this 2023 article). I know we cannot expect Wendell Berry to solve all world problems but I was hoping he would not do such a poor job in his treatment of the fact that actually women are people, *in an agricultural context. In his endeavor to have us see the complicated way *some pieces of this puzzle cannot be extricated from one another (men and race and land), I wish he would have seen gender. He did not, and the passing few sentences he does give to it are so off track. So, it makes it harder for me to absorb whatever else he is saying. I know he never stated this book to be about gender, but he pushes hard expecting us to see intersections of other kinds, it just seems impossible that he can drop the ball on the intersection of gender with all of the other intersections he is capable of entertaining. I’m pressing on with the book, but this is a hangup I’m owning right now.
I do think he has points about dispensability, about how certain work is perceived, and how that influences our approach to the land. But if he can’t tie in a little something about how *women are perceived as dispensable… I guess he sees rape as a modern thing (I believe I harped on the rape of enslaved women last time) that is due to poor upbringing (hi, blame mothers much?) and yeah this is just where I’m at. I keep saving my comment to drafts but it’s almost time for chapter 3 and I didn’t want to drop out of the conversation. But also not feeling my comment is at all in step with others so I get it if you all would rather not engage this one.
I need time to take this one in. But, in the meantime, I think LAProgressive is a reliable resource? I mean, I think we know Berry is old-fashioned, but I do not believe he splits the roles by gender ... gads, what do I know? I do remember the big 'to do' in 2019 (I linked that below). These are simply references I hope gives some background to the larger conversation of your comment.
The point being, I acknowledge your frustration. In this book, Berry talks about racism, without more than a passing comment about sexism, and even the prejudice of men v. women. He does offer a few glances, like he wants to dip a toe into a larger context but backs away just as quickly.
I'll try to formulate a larger response in the coming days. But in the meantime, as Berry frames the larger race conversation in the wrapping of agrarian communities and slavery, would he have been better served to give space to the treatment of black enslaved women beginning with the Civil War division of north and south? Would that have then naturally allowed a space to extend the conversation to more present times? Likewise, how do we feel about a white man giving any perspective to the treatment of women and what should that look like? I mean, I sort of shiver at the thought of any man telling me how I might feel/do feel/often feel, but that doesn't mean he can't put out some perspective with guardrails.
* https://www.laprogressive.com/gender-discrimination/wendell-berry-feminism
* https://religioustech.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Berry-Wendell-Feminism-the-Body-and-the-Machine.pdf
I chuckled at this line "Woe, above all, to the woman with small breasts or a muscular body or strong features." which describes exactly who is typing this comment. Ha!
I guess I'm not that surprised to learn more of his politics re: abortion and divorce. Also disappointing.
I didn't know about the "to do."
I agree, he offers a few glances, but I think he would have done better to leave women completely out of it than to say what he did. And yes, I would have hoped for him to treat gender as related to his thesis (it is) but not in passing comments. (I'd argue nobody was imposing any page limit on this man.) And not, as you say, to tell us how to feel. (Is he telling Black people how to feel?) But make his own observations (as long as he made some relevant ones.)
Ugh I'm just becoming the curmudgeon in the room.
Don't forget this part of the article, "Thus, here is a fair warning: Do not expect any simplistic, immature, conventional treatment of women’s exploitation from Berry. To appreciate his approach you have to be open-minded, open to looking at a long-standing problem from a new perspective."
I wonder IF it is discouraging that a man that is 90 years old disappoints because he so often offers a distant approach to how he speaks (not) of women.
I wonder, is this lack of inclusivity that is bothersome stemming from the fact that he is well thought and we expect him to lead with clarity. Or, does it feel like he is invoking a sex-based heirarchy?
I’m having trouble approaching these questions. He says things that are harmful to survivors of gender-based violence. Did I get that across in my long comment? That’s where I’m stuck. Your questions seem aimed to help me past not being included, but that’s not where I’m stuck.
Explain, "Also disappointing. "
So I went back to the text to read your comment finally winding my way to Chapter IV. Sin, and an entry into the chapter using the Kavanaugh nomination. Yes, a drop of two pages which feels out of place because Berry does not continue with the analysis. Yes, he might have been better served to omit these pages. Poor examples, there are others he could have used. No reference is made that Ford (initially) tried to maintain silence (which is often what happens in sexual assault) before speaking out. Which in and of itself gives voice to the aggression women feel with speaking out, to be heard, even believed.
Sexual violence statistics says 1 in 5 women experience assault. I believe the number is higher.
So, what does that mean in reference to this book? In some respects, might Berry be steering (mostly) away from a topic that is a conversation in and of itself? Where is the conversation liability to try to speak about both - blackness and womanness - in a history of prejudice?
What, I think I understand anyway, is that Berry leads into the query of "public exposures" as to how "sin" is evaluated in current times. By such, he is tending to the (what I perceive) as more stringent boundaries expected from smaller communities that tend to teach within. I have in my notes: honor, knit.
Which is a long response back to say in the neighbor argument Berry makes, he places a significant blame on urban while not acknowledging that the same happens in rural. In other words, the 'not in my backyard' made be adding a foggy haze to the rose-colored glasses.