Erasing Ancient and Medieval Disability: Dangers of Modern Idealism Transplanted Onto The Past
***Disclaimer: This article discusses history, politics, heritage, and disability. It is not meant to be on one side or the other of the political spectrum. I am not pushing the narrative of a political party. Quite the opposite, as what I hope to draw attention to is the erasure of intellectualism in the face of presentism and how it ironically leads to the erasure of the heritage and history of those with disabilities, including CVD (cardiovascular disease) in pre-modern periods.
This article is different than my usual dives into aspects of exclusively CVD-based content in how I’ve broadened the scope to include disability as a whole and the intersection of heritage, history, and politics.
From my observation of the trends impacting my field, there is a broadly unspoken consequence for our current political climate that I believe needs to be addressed. I have dedicated my adult life to studying history, anthropology, heritage, and culture for over a decade now. However, I have done it through battling my CVD (cardiovascular disease) along with asthma and a slew of other ailments every step of the way, which has given me a unique perspective on this matter. As such, I have noticed not only a shift in the field towards the embracing of “presentism,” but a broad brushstroke casting everything before the present age as unenlightened and, therefore, immoral by default. This means that, according to this ideology, everything and everyone who came before can and should be judged according to the moral standard of the present. As such, through this perspective, history becomes a morality game, a tool to promote a narrative. The aspects that support this political agenda can be cherry-picked and protected while those that fall short are used as a scapegoat or, if they are deemed unacceptable, are subject to damnatio memoriae, and therefore forgotten. However, by doing this, through the lens of presentism, a marginalized group, those with disabilities, can easily be deemed unfavorably by these standards, and even if temporarily raised on a moral pedestal due to identity politics, cannot accurately or adequately be fully understood. This is because people who experience illness and disability, especially historical figures, were deeply impacted by the time/location-specific events, concerning culture, religion, expectations, and values of their lifetimes. This means that it is disrespectful and inappropriate to broadly paint over them through a lens of modern ideals, as it ironically systematically erases the necessary nuance and therefore destroys any hope of understanding and empathizing with them in the context of their life. Therefore, I argue that contextualism is necessary when discussing history especially when it is intersected with heritage and politics because it gives the individuals who were disabled in the past, the respect, dignity, and understanding they deserve, rather than posthumously hijacking their lives and stories to fit the wants and needs of a modern narrative to remain “ relevant” and therefore, remembered. However, this twists the nuances of the lives of the broader past, but especially those with disabilities, in a distinctly disrespectful manner. Therefore, this is especially important regarding modern ideals like presentism, relevance, and presumed moral superiority, as, alternatively, one must understand the uses and reasons for modern presentism to comprehend its impact and distortion of the stories of disabled people of the medieval and ancient past and why contextualism is necessary to acurately and adequately understand the lives of historical figures with disabilities.
The path to the deepest darkness is paved with good intentions. Or so it is in this case with moral idealism and its impact on the study of history. Concepts like presentism, which, according to the article, The Allure And The Dangers of Presentism, “is the practice of judging historical figures by the moral and ethical standards of the present day” (CBC, 2016) have become more and more accepted and commonplace in historical research and have been so for at least the past twenty years, with rising afluency with certain optimism regarding its early acceptance into the field. However, this was initially done with good intentions of expanding the historical narrative.
The article, The Upside of Presentism, written by Lynn Felder and published in 2008, points out, “strategically presentistic histories incorporate an orientation that deliberately uses the lenses and perspectives of the present in order to bring current assumptions into focus. When assumptions are examined about presentistic perspectives, those assumptions loosen their reins on thought. Since presentism is unavoidable, presentism should not be dismissed outright, but ought to be subject to probing and critical examination. With such a focus, strategically presentistic historiography allows for a reflection on the limits of what it is possible to think” (Fendler, 2008). However, I argue that this creates several assumptions, especially in how “presentism is unavoidable” (Fendler, 2008) and that is justification for its use as a tool “for probing and critical examination” (Fendler, 2008). This means that the subjective has not only been embraced but is now considered the primary tool for examining objectivity, rather than the other way around. By embracing this concept, there unintentionally, but inevitably creates the potential rise of and acceptance of populism as a tool, or even an accepted aspect of modern historical study as if these modern values and ideals are necessary to study the past, then that means these ideals are also projected upon the past to discern and even erase or ascribe value based on that finicky moral compass.
Another article, The Trap Of Present-Day: Presentism As An Issue And Its Boundaries In Historical Methodology by Ibrahim Yorgun centers on the dangers of this practice to the academic study and remembrance of history as a whole. Because “historical events and past actions often have long-term effects and distant consequences that extend beyond their immediate context” (Yorgun, 2024), it is important, even necessary, to view each historical figure in their own perspective and time. To look at these events through only one lens does a disservice to the broader understanding of the events and their consequences. This is because “historians must be entitled to consider these far-reaching impacts when analyzing historical events and actions, thereby enhancing their understanding of the past” (Yorgun, 2024). The article also discusses the dangers of assuming the mantle of presentism and how this particular view, and the only use of this singular moral idealistic perspective, is dangerous to the concept of historical study and broader understanding. “Therefore, by reassessing presentism, which is the anachronistic imposition of modern perspectives on historical analysis, the article seeks to address a significant challenge in the discipline of history writing. Presentism distorts our understanding of the past by projecting contemporary values and ideas onto historical events” (Yorgun, 2024). This is why it is important, even necessary in the modern era for historians and heritage professionals “to counteract this tendency” (Yorgun, 2024) toward overreliance on subjectivity and by focusing on “the importance of contextual analysis, advocating for a rigorous examination of the cultural, social, economic, and political environments in which historical events occurred” (Yorgun, 2024). This is especially important with nuances and the spectrum of disability, as each individual and group reacts differently to it based on time/location/cultural norms.
This well-intentioned but disturbing trend of presentism sacrifices the objective understanding and surrounding traditional historical scholarship, or the political and emotional convenience of the present. These are meant to address “systemic” social justice issues such as racism, agism, ableism, toxic masculinity, patriarchy, and a range of other concerns. On the opposite side, these problems are combated by an expansion on the concept of “good.” These arguably over-idealized intentions include modern ideals like feminism, inclusion, accessibility, and equity to address, combat, and eliminate this injustice of the past.
However, this is all strictly through the lens of modern values and ideals. Through this perspective, everything can be seen through these lenses and, therefore, should be judged by how well it fits into the mold of the modern perspective. Unfortunately, this leaves most of history condemned as “immoral.” This has created an ideal narrative while intentionally or unintentionally engaging in damnatio memoriae, or the act of being forgotten by those who fall outside this arguably narrow perspective.
I argue that, transplanting modern ideals without acknowledging the religious, cultural, or realistic nature of the past and the circumstances in which they live is dangerous because, through this, the past has become a tool of the present, a sacrifice on the alter of modernity and identity politics judging it as an all-encompassing systemic moral failing overshadows the nuanced cultural, religious, and practical reason these issues were faced by people in the past, and how they were dealt with in their particular time.
While historical context and objectivity are essential to gaining a true understanding of any historical figure, it is especially crucial when studying those who experienced disability or illness in the past. However, focusing on modern ideals and viewing the past through them colors the lived experience of people in a time and place and culture different than our own. It is also done under the assumption that not only do we understand them, but that we have any moral right or authority to judge them or the contributions they made to history, when instead we should do our best to understand and empathize with the past to better prepare for the future.
However, historical figures, especially ones who experienced illness or disability, need to be understood not through this prescribed Marxist systematic lens, but rather, through context and objectivity to provide each historical figure with the respect they deserve.
While it should be remembered that, to some extent, all history is subjective, and therefore the argument for a purely subjective study of history through a modern lens, from this viewpoint, makes sense.
However, the point of the study of history itself is to see through that filter of subjective personal bias to discern the objectivity and truth beneath. This is considerably more difficult if the lens, which is already clouded by time, is intentionally broken in the name of some modern ideal, which I argue is, in itself, immoral. This has led to the result of modern people simultaneously feeling better about themselves through an assumed moral superiority by projecting their contemporary moral compass onto the past, while ironically erasing the lives of disabled figures during the medieval and ancient periods in the name of modern moral idealism, such as inclusivity. This shifts the study of history to looking for moral clues, highlighting how we believe things should have been rather than trying to understand the way things were and the truth within the details.
However, I don’t think this is done maliciously, but rather from a place of naivety, as it is so easy to fall into the habit of judging all things through a subjective lens, especially in the modern day. This is because “thanks to social media, we live in an era of harsh, instantaneous judgment. People, especially well-known people, are condemned on the slightest evidence without any reference to the context or complexity of the time. In this age of identity politics, political careers are quickly smothered with the discovery of a long-ago remark which may offend some group or other” (CBC, 2016). While this is true in the present, engaging in presentism in historical study transplants this idea onto the past, even the distant past, regardless of how inappropriate and distorted it makes the results.
As a result of this present idea of history, the past and the study of it has shifted from being an ever-evolving timeline to becoming an untamed ocean fraught between the shores of moral and immoral in murky waters, trying desperately to stay above the waves of relevance while simultaneously remaining the line of least offense, using it as the wind to guide it through the storm lest the entire enterprise be condemned, sunk, and forgotten into the single category of “irrelevancy” or, more aptly translated, “inconvenience.” However, there is a sick irony to this new dynamic, especially regarding the history of those with disabilities, where relevancy is used as a modern measuring stick to determine the importance of the individual.
The “relevancy” of individuals with disability depended on the culture they were in and the circumstances of their lives. It was not systematic and therefore cannot be judged as such. Disability and illness were far more common back then on a global scale, and it is only thanks to modern medicine that we are able to have the privilege to judge it as we do now. Back then, it could have been a curse, a sin, a blessing, or a tragedy depending on the group, culture, and religion of the group. It was always a factor but never judged as moral or immoral due to a scale of “relevancy” when it was always important back then based on the scale of “terminality.” How likely it was to kill you, maim, and impact your life was important, not how society should bend to make your life more comfortable.
The past, especially the medieval and ancient past, and the present periods have two very different centers of cultural ethos. Therefore, one cannot be judged as morally superior to the other if they are just different.
While the concept of illness and time-specific morality is necessary to understanding how it was treated at the time, at no other time than the present was it understood or dismissed systematically through the lens of relevance by which to use it as a means to gain social attention on a grand idealistically-global scale to suit a political socially-justified narrative in order for an individual to gain attention via virtue signaling.
Disability and illness in general, and arguably, even history as a whole, are not fads. It does not come and go, and therefore, it is inappropriate and even dangerous to judge it by these shifting standards based on modern populism and not within the context in which it occurred.
This concept of the need for “relevance” and historical study is foundational to what sparked this article in the first place. An example of this occurred recently. I had a discussion with an old friend of mine, whom I respect, and in no way did this discussion diminish that respect. However, the results were surprising. I tried to explain the importance of moral relativism/ cultural contextualism when studying the past because, to understand the past, each culture and each individual must be understood through the lens of their own time, circumstance, culture, and expectations placed upon them. She disagreed and said moral absolutism was most important.
To make my point, I referenced Baldwin IV and Vlad Tepes of Wallachia because both were disabled, albeit one physically and one mentally. Still, one suffered from leprosy and the other arguably experienced a severe case of PTSD. Yet, both went to war, and both, depending on the perspective, committed actions which could be seen as crimes or heroic deeds depending on who is telling the story and which narrative one is promoting. But their illness and the events of their lives remain the same; so, who was moral?
My friend responded to my point that they were not “relevant” and therefore did not matter.
That perspective is from the view of popular presentism. From this viewpoint, it does not matter how influential or important the individual was at their time. Their disability and how much it is accentuated in modern culture shift according to how useful it is to the current narrative. Baldwin IV has featured in only one movie: “Kingdom of Heaven” (2005), which at least attempts to show events from his life with arguably many creative liberties. On the other hand, Vlad Tepes has a whole slew of movies, but the overwhelming majority of them focus on the supernatural legacy his brutality inspired rather than the events of his life. One movie that made a strong attempt at highlighting his life was “Dark Prince: True Story of Dracula” (2000), while other movies bearing his name, while excluding his historical and even disabled past, are often excluded for the sake of entertainment and relevancy in popular culture.
Therefore, she was right that these historical figures are not “relevant.” However, to put it more accurately, they are “inconvenient” to the modern narrative. But, I think their lives matter and deserve to be remembered all the more because disability and illness are not new phenomena, and how they dealt with theirs and learning from their lives can help us deal with the health problems we face today.
From this presentistic perspective, it does not matter that Baldwin IV, who ruled Jerusalem for France during the Era of the Crusades, was infected by leprosy at the age of twelve. Nor does it matter that his illness was discovered by his tutor when he felt no pain while roughhousing with his friends. Nor that his teacher wept to his father upon hearing the news. It does not matter that he rode to battle at age sixteen despite his illness. It does not matter that he maintained as much regional peace and control as possible during his lifetime and tried multiple times to retire, but found himself dragged back to the throne to manage what others could not. It does not matter because of his assumed cursed affliction; his sister had an extremely limited selection of suitors, nor did it matter that this ultimately led to the swift overthrowing of his kingdom after his death at the age of twenty-four. From this perspective, it also does not matter how, even though his illness tainted his reign, he carried it with dignity, which seemed to earn him respect even from his enemies.
Alternatively, according to the perspective of modern presentism, Baldwin IV is remembered within the contemporary narrative as he was a member of a collective group of historical disabled individuals from the distant past, but is not remembered individually for his great deeds despite his illness in the context of his own life. And even then, he will remain “relevant” as long as he is useful for that narrative. But I think his life matters not because he was disabled, but the life he led despite his disability as a unique individual, made stronger by how he handled such a tragedy.
The same goes for Vlad Tepes. While he did objectively brutal deeds in his life, if one looks at the brutality of his childhood and the requirements of his political position, one can come to understand his worldview and why he did what he did. Although in no means do I intend to gloss over the objectively gruesome actions of his reign, according to the tenets of historical contextualism, one can understand such matters through the context of his life without condoning them.
And this, I believe, is the respect that history and historical figures deserve, especially for people in medieval and ancient times and even more so for those who experienced disability during that period. The thing is, while this focus on the modern was done with the good intention of expanding the narrative and broadening the hyperfocus of modern intellectualism on colonialism and its continued impact into the modern day. It, in my opinion, has done a great deal of harm to the study of history and the tradition of Western academia itself. This is because this primarily Marxist view has led to a development of intellectual blinders centering on the present and the ideals and the projection of these modern idealized values for the future, and blocking out any other context-based view through the lens of morality.
However, in my experience and research, this moral-centric study of the past is inappropriate because disability takes no prisoners, nor does it have a code of ethics. To be ill was not a result of social injustice, as illness and disability were considered something to be avoided, and certainly could not be healed by being socially embraced. However, as I said, there were nuances.
Archaeological and anthropological research is filled with evidence of ancient ailments and disabilities, so much so that, before modern medicine and hygienic practices, illness itself was the norm, death even moreso, and to be healthy was considered the ideal. There was a high level of infant mortality, so reaching adulthood was, in itself, a blessing. However, how each group reacted to each illness was different based on cultural, religious, and value-based expectations. For example, people in ancient Egypt with clubbed feet were deemed blessed by Ptah, which is why there is such a high concentration of pharaohs with the ailment, and likely contributed to the continued practice of incest because it was not considered an issue as much as a blessing. People in ancient Hatti who were blind were considered special-sighted and were often priests, while those without sight in ancient Egypt were often employed as musicians. People with dwarfism in ancient cultures like Ancient Egypt were often seen as blessed, as they resembled the god, Bes, and were treated with great reverence and esteem. Therefore, one can see that disabilities were treated differently by different ancient cultures, which is important when it comes to broadening the narrative, but if one erases the context, this collected information is useless.
However, in the view of presentism, this is considered contrary to the modern belief and narrative, where people who were disabled were often considered despised by the general public. Yes, they were, but there was a time, place, and reason for it. I do not excuse it, but I do not condemn it either. I wish to understand it. However, recent trends have led to a particular shift in tides where individual opinions and moral projection now eclipse these efforts to understand the past, not to create comfort for the present.
But history, in my opinion, was not meant to be comfortable. It was meant to be understood. And suppose we view the past through the lens of oppression. In that case, we ironically can easily drag people who were not only oppressed by society, but primarily oppressed by reality, through the mud along with everyone else who falls under this “immoral” umbrella. As such, historical figures and especially those with disability in the past, in my opinion, should inspire respect rather than scorn.
However, it is popular, if not commonplace, now for popular historical narratives to outweigh academic understanding. This is usually through the lens of assumed power and generalizations of race and majority/minority standing, such as white people are often cast as the role of the conquerors and oppressors, while “minorities” or indigenous groups are the oppressed.
By shifting the focus from recognizing the context and the significance of the i, to centralizing history as a study of the interrelations of macro-groups of race, gender, and the like, this puts people with disabilities in a precarious situation of being an inconvenience and therefore, potentially forgotten due to prescribed irrelevancy. However, how could they be remembered for their individual differences if they are only being cherry-picked to fulfill a broader narrative rather than being understood and remembered for who they were?
However, this is not how This is because people with disabilities back then were not only “oppressed by society” as we assume with our modern perspective, but rather “oppressed by reality.” They were understood differently, and because of this alternate perspective, there is no hero or villain, as they did what they must to live with their illness as best they could at the time, while accepting the inevitable despite it all.
I believe that using morality as ayardstick for which one measures history is a dangerous president to set as it simultanoeusly collectively lower history, en medieval and ancient history down on a moral standard while raising modernity and modern ideals to an undue and unearned authority on the matter while trying to use the past rather than understand it. Personally, I believe that the stories of those with ancient and medieval disabilities should be kept alive because of who these people were, not judged by how they suit a narrative, nor judged by their actions, or modern privilege deems we have the right to do. They were real people with struggles in their individual lives, and how they lived or didn’t. It is uncomfortable, but brutal. Yet, I can assure you it was more so for them. From Baldwin IV’s leprosy, to the blind lutist in ancient Egypt to the King of the Aztecs with a crippled arm from incest, Richard III’s scoliosis, the poor pauper in Victorian England with a broken leg, Vad Tepes’s PTSD, the tall priestess in Iran with the prosthetic golden eye… to every person in the ancient world who struggled not for an ideal, but for life. That, to me, is not irrelevant. I do not want these figures to be remembered because they were disabled, nor because they fit a certain currently morally-relevant demographic, or because it suits my personal political agenda. Instead, I believe it should be recognized that people in the past were human, regardless of disability, and should be judged individually by the context of their time, not the relevancy of their demographic. They did not have the luxury of the modern privileges and conveniences we enjoy today, but still, through the human spirit, resources, and knowledge they possessed, they lived despite it. Not struggling for a cause, but for themselves and the people around them. For life. What could be more moral and noble than that?
What do you think?
Keep ticking, everyone!
Reference list
CBC. (2016). The Allure And The Dangers Of ‘Presentism’. [online] Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-past-is-not-the-present-do-food-animals-have-rights-alberto-manguel-s-curious-mind-the-great-hunger-1.3497315/the-allure-and-the-dangers-of-presentism-1.3497463.
Fendler, L. (2008). The Upside Of Presentism. Paedagogica Historica, 44(6), pp.677–690. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230802486150.
Yorgun, İ. (2024). The Trap Of Present-Day: Presentism As An Issue And Its Bounderies In Historical Methodology. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, 39(2), pp.881–898. doi:https://doi.org/10.18513/egetid.1543287.
#cvd #disability #history #heritage #presentism #contextulism #populism #archeology #