Member Rara Avis
"'The savage the peasant, the poor man, and woman are not what we call intellectual, because they are not taught to know and manipulate the materials of knowledge. The savage is outside the process from geographical reasons; the peasant is not in the center of interest; the poor man's needs are pressing, and do not permit of interests of a mediate character; and woman does not participate because it is neither necessary nor womanly."
Definitions according to the article (note, I've read this article once, and in the middle of a rather intense discussion...can't say I'm fully versed in it yet):
Savage - people from 'lower races' (gag)...civilisations like african tribes, australian aborigines etc.
Peasant - person working off the land to live.
poor man - just that...poor people often in rural centres.
And woman - often, in this article, the theorist examines women of his so-called 'lower races'...but also, in this particular paragraph, women in western societies.
What he is saying is that people who fall into these categories are denied access to intellectual knowledge. The term he uses is 'body of knowledge' which is technically an academic term, for academic applications/studies/theorising etc.
Now - the savage can't access these bodies of knowledge because the savage is geographically alienated - ie, stuck in an african tribe for example. (No Yale university there...)
The peasant - may live within an intellectualised society, but has no access to the avenues of intellectualism (life style prevents it, different kind of knowledge is needed - ie, how to work the land to live).
The poor man - too busy surviving to chase the intellectual product.
And woman - well...there's a couple of things there. First - only the poor woman needs to work, apparently. A lady of leisure can 'feed from the hand.' Yes, K, if we were ladies of leisure we could feed from the hand and not have a care in the world. Charming. Secondly, it is not 'womanly' to pursue intellectual courses; he explores various definitions of 'womanly' pertaining to different cultures..
Helped? Will read article again tomorrow and elaborate more, and probably more accurately, if needed..
[This message has been edited by Severn (01-04-2004 04:38 AM).]