"The seventy-three chapters (praecepta) of the Rule of Saint Benedict seem to regulate
every moment and every aspect of monastic life in maniacal detail. If micro-managers have a patron saint, it is surely Saint Benedict." -- Daston, Rules: A Short History of What We Live By
It struck me on this reading how unfortunately glib that assessment is. In a mostly smart book, this moment was funny, but flat-footed
In fairness to Daston, the discussion goes on to talk about the rule's "extraordinary
resilience and adaptability," and it's that part of the discussion which drew me back to the book, and which I *will* draw on in my own material.
But I was really caught out by the mis-step early in the chapter in ways that hadn't hit me upon first reading.
Every reading is a fresh reading.
Here's the better bit that I was coming to Daston for:
"What to modern eyes reads as a pendulum swing between stringency and indulgence was to pre-modern sensibilities the only way to formulate a complete rule, both specific and supple" -- Daston, Rules: A Short History of What We Live By
Like I said, a mostly really-smart book!
Daston again: "Regulations do not lay
claim to the moral high ground of principle, whatever their preambles may say. Instead, they wallow in the weediest details."
She talks about barking your shins on regulations, and that does seem to sum up the mood of the moment. And yet regulations smooth out societal bumps and hurdles -- a bit of inconvenience seems to me a ready price for health, safety, and a quality future. Do we still believe that? Do we?
scholar_farmer