"Living in the Past," and social (in)tolerance

[Naturalist]

Lately I found myself thinking a lot about Tasha Tudor. If you don't know, she was an illustrator who lived somewhat reclusively on a New England farm, with a lifestyle typical of the 1830s: no electricity or running water, growing her own food and making her own clothes from cloth woven herself from wool and flax grown on her property. Although that's an extreme example, I can understand the feeling of not belonging in one's own time, and wishing to do things differently. Plus simply enjoying the natural processes and sense of self-sufficiency. I enjoy sometimes making my own clothes, which I stitch by hand (no machine).

Then I came across this essay, in response to another blog post about a couple who lives a Victorian lifestyle (the original blog post is here). Although I agree with a few of the statements made in the historian's essay, I was largely appalled by the lack of tolerance which this couple encounters in choosing a different lifestyle. The author of the original blog post says she even receives death threats! And the historian who writes the essay seems very dismissive of the fact that doing things "the old way" also provides a sense of structure and tradition, two very human needs which are often unmet in our society. Also, a lot of insight about the past can in fact be gained through "living history" or "experimental archaeology". What do you think? Have you ever wanted to do things in a manner more consistent with another time or culture? Or do you agree with the professor?

 

[BIMOG]

I feel an affinity towards the early years of the 1900s, the dawn of the modern era filled with exciting new developments like cinema, radio, cars, planes. I like the fashions and I like the lifestyles but would I like to live back then or live now but in an imitation early 1900s lifestyle? No. There have been huge advances in medicine, technology and in social equality since those days and of course there is also the internet, where would we be without that? I have heart failure, I've had two heart attacks, I've also got diabetes and other health issues, without modern medicine I simply wouldn't be alive. I think people tend to see the past through rose tinted spectacles, focusing on the "life was simpler and more rewarding back then" aspects but forgetting about the appalling death rates and unsanitary living conditions. Diphtheria, TB, bedbugs, Scarlet Fever, Polio... no thanks, I'll stick with the present for all of its faults.

 

[tree]

1.
The people playing Let's Live Like Victorians....
(uh...I mean the people who are doing the research project
and writing all those books and articles about it-----)
mentioned the bath tub.

But not the other necessary plumbing in the bath room.
[Well....necessary is an over statement.
My grandpa & grandma got an indoor toilet when I was 8 years old.
They weren't playing at living in another century.

I don't like to imagine how it was for my mother and her sisters,
growing up in rural Louisiana, with an outhouse. Being female.
Aspects of female hygiene. In the summer. The outhouse.]

Not all people living in the Victorian era had bathrooms like these.
https://fontedeimarmi.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/bathrooms-through-the-ages-victorian-era-1837-1901/

2.
How nice for her, that she empties the water from her
ice box twice a day. That must be quite a meditative
ritual for her, connecting her to the ebb & flow of nature.

I wonder where the ice comes from.

I don't think her husband keeps it under straw from the
winter before.

 

[On the Inside]

I think about how I would it would be to live a life without the modern technology and conveniences. I have developed a high level of skill for woodworking using hand tools. I've had many season's of large gardens, canned some of the produce, and I ride my bike or walk most everywhere I go, I have for several years. I've also lived in houses heated primarily with wood we gathered and split on site.

I think about it not because I have some romantic notion that life was simpler, more lived in times past, but because I am kind of sensitive to noise, exhaust, power and speed. I have the patience to go slower. But I also think about how precarious our 7+ billion lives are, as many of us depend so completely on systems that for all we know could collapse at any time. I'm not a doomsdayer, but it just seems that a majority of Westernized people are pretty reliant on gadgets, machines, and the Grid without really thinking about all that it requires to keep it all going. I like to live a little lower on the tech scale, I'll put in the effort.

 

[Naturalist]

I don't like to imagine how it was for my mother and her sisters,
growing up in rural Louisiana, with an outhouse. Being female.
Aspects of female hygiene. In the summer. The outhouse.]

Not all people living in the Victorian era had bathrooms like these.
https://fontedeimarmi.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/bathrooms-through-the-ages-victorian-era-1837-1901/
.

Absolutely agreed with you on this matter especially! My house had a chamberpot when I bought it. You can bet I added toilets--3, to be precise.

I love the details you chose for your critique, as some of her descriptions do seem a bit silly. However, I think anyone who is passionate about something can seem "silly" to someone who doesn't share the same passion. I've heard my share of those accusations. Also, I think it's not that they do everything with period accuracy--she does keep a blog and a website, after all--but that she and her husband have chosen a certain lifestyle which reflects some of their personal preferences, and like any life, is a work in progress. I have to admire their boldness, anyway.

I think about it not because I have some romantic notion that life was simpler, more lived in times past, but because I am kind of sensitive to noise, exhaust, power and speed. I have the patience to go slower. But I also think about how precarious our 7+ billion lives are, as many of us depend so completely on systems that for all we know could collapse at any time. I'm not a doomsdayer, but it just seems that a majority of Westernized people are pretty reliant on gadgets, machines, and the Grid without really thinking about all that it requires to keep it all going. I like to live a little lower on the tech scale, I'll put in the effort.

This was really the core message that I derived, because the original author--the wife, of the "Victorian" couple--emphasized that living in the context of earlier technologies made her more mindful, more aware of her needs and impact on the world. She also acknowledged that not everyone needed to adopt a similar lifestyle to achieve the same mindfulness, but that she wished others could at least respect the way they chose to live. Her comments on society's intolerance to difference really echoed what I have read on these forums, which is why I chose to post it. I am enjoying the discussion so far!

I also had a laugh at the Assistant Professor, going on about the couple's "egotism" when he seemed unable to compose a sentence without implementing Superior Academic Vocabulary. It really galls me when academics deliberately try to prove how intellectually superior they are to the "common folk". As a hyperlexic person working in academia, who thrives on precise language, I feel compelled to make this criticism. Seems he is suffering from Assistant Professor Syndrome...

 

[AsheSkyler]

Canning is pretty common with the traditionalists in my area. Folks here tend to be a bit skeptical of the families with 10+ kids who grow their own wheat for bread and generally be rather rustic, but I haven't heard of any threats against them. If there was a need for me to switch completely to traditional methods, I could probably get my gaming kicks through D&D and meet my programming needs through creating complex crochet patterns.

But I really want indoor plumbing in some manner or another. Having used corncobs and outhouses before, I have a fondness of toilets and toilet paper.

 

[On the Inside]

I agree about the plumbing. Outhouses, still have the one at the old family place.

I also had a laugh at the Assistant Professor, going on about the couple's "egotism" when he seemed unable to compose a sentence without implementing Superior Academic Vocabulary. It really galls me when academics deliberately try to prove how intellectually superior they are to the "common folk".

Maybe you can explain this, then. It seems to me that "Professors", especially those of the social sciences, really try to be the "objective observer" and therefore are prone to having the "eye of god" so to speak. Therefore are automatically intellectually superior. It seems to appear often when academics are used to enlighten some media piece. I have an anthropological treatise from 1893 in my book collection and it it riven through with haughty judgement of savages, peasants, commoners, and backwards foreigners. It is far more enlightening on where our western ideology and culture came from than it is on those who were it's subjects.

 

[Naturalist]

I agree about the plumbing. Outhouses, still have the one at the old family place.



Maybe you can explain this, then. It seems to me that "Professors", especially those of the social sciences, really try to be the "objective observer" and therefore are prone to having the "eye of god" so to speak. Therefore are automatically intellectually superior. It seems to appear often when academics are used to enlighten some media piece. I have an anthropological treatise from 1893 in my book collection and it it riven through with haughty judgement of savages, peasants, commoners, and backwards foreigners. It is far more enlightening on where our western ideology and culture came from than it is on those who were it's subjects.

The interesting thing is, that professors in the arts and humanities are frequently very biased in their assessment of their subject, and yet they expect the use of complex language will give them the authority which justifies their bias. I find this to be the case with the professor in question. Whereas in the sciences, one expects that objective research and recurrent testing give one credibility. I welcome the use of very precise language from any academic when it is necessary to communicate an idea for which they can offer actual evidence, through actual research. But when someone uses lots of fancy words to make a statement which is substantially mere opinion, I think it reveals much about their own insecurities and discredits most of what they are saying, even if they might otherwise have had a valid point.

For what it's worth, I have a humanities degree but now work in a science department, for the very reasons I describe here.

You are quite correct, anthropological treatises and textbooks, historical and modern, frequently reveal more about the culture producing the treatise than the culture being studied in it!

 

[tree]

Man the Nature Tamer (subtitled From Cave Man to American Citizen)
published in the early 1940s

We used that book for social studies at home. I bought the book
at the library used book sale.

The book was a wonderful illustration of the point of view
regarding human relationships in the first half of the
20th century.

The references to "how women helped" were especially entertaining.

 

[On the Inside]

The book that I mentioned, I can't recall the name and most of my books are in storage, has some incredible full page illustrations and is leather bound.

 

[Naturalist]

Man the Nature Tamer (subtitled From Cave Man to American Citizen)
published in the early 1940s

We used that book for social studies at home. I bought the book
at the library used book sale.

The book was a wonderful illustration of the point of view
regarding human relationships in the first half of the
20th century.

The references to "how women helped" were especially entertaining.

Also entertaining is the title, and the apparent belief that "the American citizen" must be the most highly evolved human form... not only anthropocentric, but also nationalistic (and presumably ethnocentric). Laughing quite hard over that one!