In The Alphabet Versus The Goddess, Leonard Shlain proposes that "alphabetic literacy" is the direct cause of many of the world's ills, and sets out to prove it. I am both an artist and a voracious reader and so expected to have strong sympathies on both sides of Shlain's argument. I was not disappointed by this; in fact, it has taken me a long time to finish this book since I kept putting it aside to think about the topics raised.

The book is structured as a loose survey of recorded history, primarily focusing on the Middle East and Europe, although there are chapters about India, Islam and the Far East as well. Each chapter covers a burgeoning of literacy in a place and time, and some of the social changes that happened concurrently or followed closely upon the changes in literacy. This is a juxtaposition I had never seen made before, and the results are very interesting: almost invariably an addition in literacy seems intertwined with a decrease in tolerance for other ways, and an oppressiveness in general approach.

This still seems in many ways counter-intuitive to me. I myself read to expand my knowledge, and to participate imaginatively and vicariously in experiences that I cannot or have not had myself, and believe this has increased, not decreased, my tolerance and compassion.

Still, the historical record suggests a connection of some kind. I am now willing to grant that there is some relationship between increased literacy and decreased social tolerance. I am not convinced, though, that literacy itself causes intolerance. A weakness of the book is that the causal relationship Shlain proposes has not been backed up with a mechanism that I find compelling; while he says that literacy, particularly via an alphabet rather than ideograms, causes these social and political changes, he has not satisfactorily explained how this works.

Shlain's explanation is based on what I believe to be a significantly oversimplified view of both brain structure and function, and the skills required for various tasks in the lives of Stone Age humans. While the left brain/right brain dichotomy is apt metaphorically, it is not literally true; the hemispheres overlap in function in most areas as well as having some differences, and the exact mix differs from person to person (although generalizations can certainly be made). This being the case, Shlain's argument that alphabetic literacy causes a "hypertrophy" of the left hemisphere with, presumably, and atrophy of the right, seems more poetic than literally true. His claims that hunting is a left-brain function, and gathering and nurturing are right-brain functions have even less merit, and I think this claim is based at least as much on outmoded sexual stereotypes as on any evidence. I've watched cats hunt, and they use their whole minds; likewise the accounts I've read by human hunters often credit a successful outcome to intuition at least as much as strategy. Similarly, I cannot believe that a purely intuitive approach to nurturing or gather could be as effective as one that is more integrated. I don't think the anthropological aspects are truly necessary to Shlain's theory, but he does cite them often enough in his discussion that any factual flaws there seem important.

While a survey, by its very nature, cannot cover the subtle nuances of any one area, this book is marred by additional oversimplifications. I am by no means a historian, but I have, over the years, acquired some knowledge in diverse areas. I was usually disappointed when Shlain entered one of these areas; his citations and conclusions seemed to rely upon a surface appreciation of the time and place while glossing over facts and events that might weaken his argument -- or lead to a more subtle but more accurate analysis. I don't know if he did this in every area; I do know I recognized such a tendency in the areas about which I have knowledge from other sources. While some such generalizations and omissions are inevitable given the span of the book, the number of them, and their triviality in some cases, disturbed me and made me wonder about the accuracy in the areas about which I know little.

Shlain also seemed unsure whether it was literacy itself, or "alphabetic" literacy, which causes the problems. While early on he contrasted Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, which seemed relatively benign, to writing that uses alphabets and caused problems, in his chapter on the Far East it was literacy itself that caused the problems, despite the lack of an alphabet. This inconsistency was not discussed.

All these criticisms may seem to imply that I didn't like the book, or think it poorly done. I don't; it was fascinating to read, and very thought-provoking indeed. I recommend it highly to anyone who is interested in a novel approach to history and literacy, one that raises more questions than it answers. I know I would love to read more on the subject, especially alternative explanations for the intriguing coincidence of increased literacy with social- and artistic-intolerance.