Search results
In the early years of the twentieth century, Professor Karl Lamprecht was a powerful and controversial figure in German academia, offering a universal interpretation of history that drew on an eclectic mix of politics, economics, anthropology and psychology. This article explores Mark Hovell’s experiences of working with Lamprecht at the Institut für Kultur- und Universalgeschichte [Institute for Cultural and Universal History] in Leipzig between 1912 and 1913, while also situating Hovell’s criticisms of the Lamprechtian method within wider contemporary assessments of Lamprecht’s scholarship.
(Leviticus 25:35),’ from which the talmudic sages inferred that ‘your life takes precedence (Baba Mezi’a 62a).’ The right to self-preservation might be extended to the sphere of economics but, as Heyn explained, this applies ‘only when needs are equal.’ Otherwise, greater need connotes greater right. ‘It is forbidden,’ he continues, ‘for someone to provide raiment for himself when his neighbor needs bread, to furnish his home when his friend lacks what to cover his skin with (Heyn 1958 , 32–33).’ Nobody has a right to accumulate while others live in poverty; suffering is
understandings of female sexuality that circulated within the boundaries of the ‘Church’. Indeed, the boundaries of the ‘Church’ were themselves appearing to blur in the middle of the 1960s, as initiatives such as the papal commission brought in lay experts from secular disciplines such as biology, sociology, medicine, anthropology, economics and psychology. Change seemed to be in the air; Catholics were preparing themselves for
of dominion goes hand in hand with readiness for a degree of primitivism, a free-willed simplification of life (Steinberg 1929a , 327).’ One cannot ‘exit the hidden system of the present society as long as he is enchanted by the countless achievements of modern economics and technics,’ Steinberg wrote. For one, the cacophony of experience drowns out the proverbial ‘thin, still voice’ that keeps him aware of his ‘brother who falls next to him (Steinberg 1952 , 333).’ Secondly, consumerism serves to render the working class ‘spiritually dependent on the old
prevailed over gendered prescriptions of femininity. Supply and demand economics played a role in the growth of women’s religious orders. There was a huge demand for the labour performed by religious sisters. Bishops, priests, brothers and the laity were constantly making requests for ‘a few sisters’ to run a school, for mission work, to teach orphans and so on. These requests have obscured the importance of women’s responsibility for ‘creating the demand and recognition for their own services’.109 The rapid growth of simple-vowed congregations illustrates their
use of scientific apparatus and concern for the economics of the family showed an unprecedented engagement with secular thinking, while the renewed devotion to the ‘natural’ and the almost ascetic demands made on the body seemed increasingly anachronistic to many outside observers. Catholic couples everyday, or more accurately every night, experience of practising NFP therefore represents a critical point of enquiry for this