Although there are role variations that exist between men and women during this pre-Christian period both genders performed on the battlefield. When I think about the role that women play in society today, it is easy to draw connections from the past. According to Conquergood, barbarian women theatricalized performance on the sidelines. The women observed and supported the men and encouraged their bravery. Conquergood explained a woman's role as a monitor of masculine behavior. In a sense, women participated in distracting behavior in order to interfere with performance of opposing forces. A great example we discussed in class that is comparable to the role women played in warlike situations is a football game, where we have cheerleaders/fans showing support from the sidelines. Women also contributed to educational aspects of cultural texts in this era. Male performance is valued higher than women in terms of performance but as for one gender being more highly valued than the other I don't think either would be the same without the other. As we discussed in class the two exist in combination with the one another.
Why did the Church have a difficult time co-opting the performance styles of the Anglo-Saxons as a vehicle for spreading Christianity? Why was the church so heavily invested in literacy?
The Church had a difficult time blending the performance styles of the Anglo-Saxons because the Scop's performance style was highly theatrical, arresting, perhaps even ecstatic , the Scop changed attitudes, characterizations, and voices during performance where characters did not maintain consistency, and lastly the Scop's performance was more dramatic than melodic and brought on another type of narrative called the commune or mixture of styles (Conquergood). The pull of oral traditions and the cultural values show implications of this power struggle existing between the Anglo-Saxon practices. Foucault explained, "In every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its ponderous, formidable materiality." Conquergood goes on to explain that the Church was so invested in literacy because the Church wanted to control vernacular oral traditions. This provides us evidence of the clash between oral and literate cultures. If the Church could control the spread of literacy then this would serve as a tool to control the public as well. Conquergood explained that the literacy of books and scripts serve as a technology for control and strategy for containment which has profound societal effects. Eventually the clash of oral traditions develop dialectical energy and become together a generator of cultural standards. I think that in order to set expectations you must first understand why expectations must be put in place, therefore without Christian opposition to secular oral traditions the blending of the performance styles might not have been possible. I think back to reading Burke, you cannot know what is good without first knowing what is bad. The same is true in this case, you cannot create one without the other. Conquergood quoted Burke saying, "a way of life is an acting-together; and in acting-together, men have common sensations, concepts, images, ideas, attitudes that make them consubstantial." We only live to learn together through the act of living together.
During this era, was there a separation between popular culture and high culture in performance? Were there differences between what each respective audience expected from performance?
There was little to no separation between pop culture and high culture in performance during this time because there was little hierarchy in place during this period.
I enjoyed your response, my friend, and regarding the first paragraph, I think it would be interesting to go a bit beyond what was discussed in class and reflect on the historical role of women in battle in comparison to the Anglo-Saxon of England. While women certainly made thier contributions, in times of war, both on and off the battlefield, in various other cultures women have engaged in a more behind-the-scenes role, still equally important as they tended to the family, the land, and the injured. Despite less interactive role these women played (depending on the culture and the battle at hand) men still won wars without the "cheerleaders" on the sidelines of battle. It would be interesting to explore a comparison analysis to identify exactly how effective the "cheerleader" role was in comparison to traditional female roles in battle....
ReplyDeleteI think the roll of women within the battle was an important factor into their importance within the society. Although they weren't the ones fighting, they served as a constant reminder of what the fighting was for and a morale boost. Without the women to support the men, the fighting might have ended less favorably more often.
ReplyDeleteOn the second question: You took an interesting look at it. I saw the question differently, "why didn't the church..." instead of seeing how that opposition actually shaped the church. It is a compelling way to examine the issue. I really enjoyed this answer!
In response to the first question, I agree that women played a prominent role during this era. These brave females contributed greatly to this Pre-Christian period, even risking their lives to support a great cause. My question is: historically, why do we never hear about how women have devoted themselves' for the cause of the greater good? Often times, history is patriarchial and male-centered. Consequently, in elementary through high school, we do not receive an education about "hidden histories," or history that does not serve the privelaged class (white males). Through studying women's history, I found that females have been the driving force behind many causes, creations, and developments. I would like to see the public education system incorporate a women's studies course into the curriculum, so that students can be educated in the "hidden histories" that have positively effected our current existence.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I personally felt that the term 'cheerleader' came closest to describing the role of women on the battlefield. The more that I reflect on the reading, discussion, and blog entries, I don't think that the term 'cheerleader' works very well in describing the role of women. In one sense, it does capture the distinctly marginalized role that women played on the battlefield, yet I cannot help but think of cheerleaders as inspiring the spectators of an event, and not the actual players themselves. A cheerleader isn't actually a bona fide participant in the sense that these women were. I imagine these women on the battlefield screaming with a full compliment of genuine emotion and fearing for their lives just as the men were doing, yet the women were not physically attacking and defending. Unlike cheerleaders, these women were full participants in the battle, albeit in a complimentary role. As Conquergood points out, "Both Barbarian and Anglo-Saxon women were efficient administrators and sturdy mainstays of society." Perhaps the better term for these women on the battlefield would be as "head coaches" - like angry, spitting, emotional 'Bill Cowhers' shouting themselves hoarse at an inept Pittsburgh defensive unit in the playoffs...
ReplyDeleteTim makes a good point. There are parallels to cheerleading, but also many critical differences. The degree of interactivity is significant. I think perhaps cheerleading may be a modern, safe, "miniature" version of the role Saxon women played in warfare with the power and importance of the women's performance sanitized and minimized to be more in keeping with our modern perceptions of gender-appropriate capacity for the wielding of power and violence, as well as displays of sexuality.
ReplyDeleteKrystle -- you only have to do a total of four essays for this assignment. You're welcome to do more if you want to, of course...