Hodgen Response - Helen Higuera – week 2

Sorry about the mix up with commenting earlier!

I agree with Mackenzie that Hodgen’s discussion of Herodotus was noticeably more positive in tone than her discussion of medieval literature on foreign cultures. What seemed most significant in differentiating Herodotus from medieval writers was an at least somewhat consistent methodology, and his willingness to observe and note the actual everyday lives of people while keeping in mind cultural exchange rather than just making negative comparisons. Hodgen describes how, for Herodotus, culture meant common descent, common language, common religion, and “common observance of like manners” in everyday things. She states that he was fairly consistent in attempting to observe and describe the various “cultures” he encountered according to this definition and that he emphasized marriage customs, religious rites, burial rites and food customs. In addition to this consistent methodology, she also praises his detached and impartial tone. While she does acknowledge that Herodotus makes implicit comparisons at times in his account, she also describes how he was interested in cultural exchange, or how other cultures may have affected Greek customs, not just what other cultures lacked in comparison to his own.

In contrast, medieval writers were unable to escape certain mythological “tropes,” did not have a consistent methodology or detached tone (though she does praise Columbus’ ability to observe with a detached tone), and only concerned themselves with negative comparisons rather than cultural exchange. The time period and historical circumstances of medieval writers naturally caused many of these differences. She describes how scholasticism and the tradition of “epitomizers” caused many medieval European writers to repeat mythological tropes. Also, Europeans were writing of totally new, “savage” cultures with which the possibility for cultural exchange was slight. Hodgen notes that medieval writers were uncreative even in this aspect by refusing to investigate foreign cultures within Europe where there still would have been much opportunity for anthropological study.

This lack of creativity or ability to develop a methodology, according to Hodgen, influenced the later development of an early modern European concept of the “savage.” She points out the repetition of mythological tropes of animal-like appearance when describing Native Americans or Africans. Similarly, as a positive view of the “savage,” though there also existed the idea of an ancient, more perfect existence as a possible explanation of the origin of “savage cultures,” Hodgen explains that this was also an inherited idea. Lastly, “degeneracy” as these peoples had “wandered” farther from God since the time of Noah became an explanation cultural difference. Physical distance itself became a possible explanation for savagery.

Hodgen seems to be arguing that these ways of thinking of “the savage,” combined with a need to position him within a hierarchy of being, resulted in Linnaeus’ eventual division of humanity into separate categories and even species. In a strict, medieval, hierarchal view of the world, where would people who are so “animal-like” fit in? The struggle to reconcile this led to the division of humanity itself into a hierarchy.