Reinventing Knowledge: From Alexandria to the Internet

by Ian F. McNeely, Lisa Wolverton

A dazzling intellectual history of the West served up with verve and insight by two brilliant young historians.

Here is an intellectual entertainment, a sweeping history of the key institutions that have organized knowledge in the West from the classical period onward. With elegance and wit, this exhilarating history alights at the pivotal points of cultural transformation. The motivating question How does history help us understand the vast changes we are now experiencing in the landscape of knowledge?Beginning in Alexandria and its great center of Hellenistic learning and imperial power, we then see the monastery in the wilderness of a collapsed civilization, the rambunctious universities of the late medieval cities, and the thick social networks of the Enlightenment republic of letters. The development of science and the laboratory as a dominant knowledge institution brings us to the present, seeking patterns in the new digital networks of knowledge.Full of memorable characters, this fresh history succeeds in restoring the strangeness and the significance of the past.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Education, Philosophy, Sociology, School

343 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 17, 2008

Reviews

[Kirsten · Rating 3 out of 5]

My reaction to this book is pretty mixed. While it was interesting and prompted me to think a lot, I felt it was a slightly shallow treatment of its subject. The introduction proclaimed that it was not a history of the "great men and big ideas" of Western Intellectual history, but it reads very much that way (spoiler alert: Abelard did it). As it covered a lot of the same ground as books on the history of books and libraries in very similar ways (the movers and shakers rather than the underlying philosophies) I found myself skimming a bit.

Stylistically, it is neither a coherently narrative history nor an academic history, lacking many of the signposts of those two styles, and I found it a little hard to follow at times. People and ideas drift in and out within single paragraphs and things I wanted to know more about were not expanded upon in favour of things I did not feel contributed to the theme of the book. The style settles somewhere in between academic and popular, meaning that at times it's engaging, at times thought-provoking, but at times the impact of both are lost.

What the book succeeds at is giving the reader a sense of an ebb and flow of epistemological paradigms through history, and the contexts that surround these shifts in validity, from oral to written culture, then from the learned individual to the austere institution. It leaves one with the feeling that no intellectual paradigm should be taken for granted, especially given the parallel institutions that have grown up in other civilizations.

Finally, however, creative and thought provoking though the model is, I do not buy the author's central tenet, that institutions of knowledge and learning have undergone paradigmatic changes six times in Western history, and that each advance has effectively supplanted its predecessor. The author writes, "The library persists, then, as a critical auxiliary to the pursuit of knowledge, but no longer as an institution actively shaping and applying it" (p.255). Knowing this institution better than most, I wholeheartedly disagree and wonder how much of the argument was made out of needing to adhere to the model in question.

Overall this was an engaging and mostly readable book and I will certainly be referring to it again for research purposes, but I did not feel that it succeeded in what it set out to do, and was ultimately less satisfying as a result.

[Krishna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reviews five knowledge systems -- the library, the monastery, the university, the Republic of Letters, the disciplines and the laboratory --by which humans have created, recorded and transmitted knowledge over roughly the last two millennia. For each system, the authors review the primary means of recording or uncovering knowledge; the systems and practices that enabled it; and the wider socio-political-economic context within which each was sustained. Also for each, the critical failures and weaknesses are discussed that led to their replacement or supersession by other knowledge systems -- though systems do not often disappear when superseded by a new one, they lose their prestige and potency. The focus is mostly on the West, but the authors also consider and compare non-Western analogs for each -- except for the laboratory, which the authors state has no non-Western counterpart.

This is an easy book to read, with a chapter organization that is logical and intuitive to follow. It has a panoramic sweep, taking in major intellectual currents from Alexander's invasion of Egypt, to the emergence of the Internet. There are some fascinating insights too. A few of these as follows. The library emerged as a means for political leaders to justify their power over newly subjugated territories, as patrons and protectors of local knowledge. But it was also a subtle means of creating a shared corpus of imperial knowledge. Monasteries emerged as cities (and the libraries and academies they supported) decayed in the aftermath of the fall of Rome. Universities emerged with no planning or centralization, as essentially places where wandering scholars congregated to lecture to fee-paying students. But once universities emerged, they became sectarian citadels in the war of religions. It was in response to the excessive regulation of speech in universities that the Republic of Letters emerged -- in which liberal scholars of independent means could freely exchange ideas inspired by the Enlightenment. It also marked a stage in the revival of culture in Europe -- the re-creation of secure postal routes and transport networks, the growth in literacy, and the emergence of a class of persons with the means and the leisure to indulge in speculation. The disciplines emerged as a consequence of the commercialization of education. The only way for scholars to obtain jobs (chairs, professorships, students, rich sponsors) was to be recognized as the founder of a field -- hence the emergence of ever narrower specializations. With the discipline, came the seminar -- a structured but free-spirited dialog centered on texts, during which disciplinary traditions, canons and scholarly practices could be imparted to students. And finally, the laboratory in which the material of investigation shifted from text to nature. Interestingly, early labs were adjuncts to homes, established by rich inquirers with leisure and an introspective inclination. It was also the first knowledge system in which women found an early acceptance -- women's meticulousness, patience and conscientiousness were assets for complex laboratory setups.

The authors also present a fascinating cast of characters in this story -- from Demetrius (Athenian tyrant, expelled and had a second career as librarian at Alexandria), Cassiodorus and his early monastery, Benedict and his monastic rules, Abelard and Heloise, the Humboldt brothers, Marie Curie in her lab, and pioneers of computer networking, Vannavar Bush and Licklider.

[Renée · Rating 3 out of 5]

Letsgoooo fuck this course

[Caren · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book takes a look at how humans transferred knowledge down through time, generation to generation. Of course, the most interesting chapter for me was the first one, on libraries. A subheading opens the chapter: "By transforming a largely oral scholarly culture into a largely written one, the library made the Greek intellectual tradition both portable and heritable." If you really think about the implications of that statement, doesn't its full import just strike you as amazing, and doesn't working in a library just bring a little glow to your heart? A real focus of the chapter is the ancient library at Alexandria. It is compared to early Chinese libraries:
"Scholars at Alexandria would doubtless have turned down any opportunity to inscribe their achievements in stone even if they had had the chance to do so. And here we come to the point of this comparison: whereas Chinese libraries were founded to stem the decay of a vanishing and partly destroyed intellectual tradition in their homeland, Hellenistic libraries developed to render an existing body of knowledge reproducible and physically portable. The Greeks, both by inclination and by circumstance, lived in the present. Newcomers to the world stage, peripheral to the great Asian empires, they lacked the sense of deep time and rootedness in place that oriented Chinese scholarly culture so decisively toward reconstructing the historical past." (p. 29)
This chapter ends with a discussion of different ideas about how the library at Alexandria was destroyed.
The book then follows the path of stored knowledge through monasteries, universities, the "republic of letters" (that is, the correspondence of learned people amongst themselves across national/cultural boundaries), the disciplines (which is to say that knowledge moved into specialized realms), and lastly, the laboratory.
The conclusion states:
"Computers and the Internet, for all their democratic potential, merely allow us to live out dreams of high-tech wizardry conceived decades ago in an epoch of can-do American ingenuity. New electronic communities such as wikis and blogs, at the moment collectively dubbed Web 2.0, if anything make the pursuit of reliable, authentic knowledge more, not less, difficult online, by drowning out traditionally credentialed cultural gatekeepers." (p. 271-271) Although the authors don't make this conclusion from that statement, this is a very good raison d'etre for librarians, who are trained to find reliable information amidst the dross. And so we have come full circle to say that libraries yet remain a culturally relevant way of storing and passing on knowledge.

[Emrys · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found it accesible, informative and fascinating. It is a well-written examination of the institutions that have shaped Western knowledge into what it is today. Though Mcneely and Wolverton discuss some non-Western influences and counterparts, I would have liked to have seen a more global approach to the question of who and what decides, transmits and critises knowledge.
Despite its Eurocentricism, "Reinventing Knowledge" is a great place to start when looking into where our knowledge has come from, and by whom/what it is kept.

[Luís Gouveia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interessante e uma visão histórica sobre como colectivamente lidamos com o conhecimento, sua organização e preservação.

É também uma boa introdução ao contexto e integração da cultura Grega e sua influência no nosso mundo ocidental e discute de forma algo ligeira, mas interessante, a confrontação com outros blocos culturais como o Chinês e o Indiano e as suas diferenças.

Organizado em torno da ideia que as instituições é que moldam o conhecimento e que as pessoas que se destacaram serem mais representantes de um tempo, do que heróis isolados, desenvolve toda uma narrativa interessante - pessoalmente, não alinho muito por esta via, mas aprecio o ponto de vista.

As instituições que introduz como as mais representativas são a biblioteca, o mosteiro, a universidade, a república das letras, as disciplinas e o laboratório e por esta ordem, não estabelecendo uma substituição, mas sim um acumulado e uma nova enfase ao serviço do conhecimento.

Uma boa leitura que foge à tentação de tentar caracterizar ou projectar o tempo actual e desta forma, se fixar em ciclos de maior dimensão e portanto, mais estáveis.

Interessante em especial e para mim, pelas relações que evoca com a biblioteca, a universidade e a academia.

Dessinteressante, pela perda de velocidade e densidade dos últimos capítulos e porque, para quem acredita essencial que as pessoas podem mudar o mundo e que normalmente é quase sempre um pequeno grupo de pessoas que o fazem, a tese dos autores é a da importância das instituições. Concordo que é pelas instiuições que se constroi a memória de conhecimento (e a sua preservação) mas não o próprio conhecimento - posições diferentes, portanto.

[Truly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Membeli buku ini karema tergoda promosi Dion. Reviewnya baca di tempat dia saja he he he

Seperti yang tertera, buku inj dengan cermat berusaha melacak jejak produksi, pelestarian dan penyebaran pengetahuan yang kelak dikenal dengan sebutan tradisi "Barat",

Meski demikian, menghasilkan sebuah pemahaman akan masa ini dengan cara menggambarkan perbandingan-perbandingan budaya-budaya literer besar lainnya.

Sayang, alih bahasanya kurang optimal. Tak jarang saya harus mengulang apa yang saya baca supaya paham maknanya.

[Fred Cheyunski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Treatment of Classic Trivium Transitions - I first saw "Reinventing Knowledge" when searching for something on another topic. This occurrence turned out to be an unexpected and useful development, just as most knowledge discovery turns out to be. In particular, for me, the treatment of classic trivium transitions during the different knowledge reinvention eras these authors inadvertently address is most welcome and could be helpful for others with similar interests.

More specifically, in their Introduction, authors McNeely and Wolverton indicate (on page xiv) that “This book attempts . . . [to trace] the production, preservation, and transmission of everything worth knowing in what has become the ‘Western’ tradition. . . [in terms of] Formal knowledge. . .” They continue (on pages xvi-xvii) to say “This book is thus a history of the institutions of knowledge. It chronicles the six institutions that have dominated Western intellectual lifetimes . . . [that] coalesced in reaction to sweeping historical changes . . . parlayed dissatisfaction and disillusionment . . . [and] reinvented knowledge in founding new institutions . . . [during] moments of transition and innovation . . .”

Accordingly, the book fulfills its purpose through 6 chapters and relative time segments each devoted to the evolving institutions of knowledge: (1) The Library (350 BCE – 500 CE), (2) The Monastery (100 – 1000), (3) The University (1100 – 1500), (4) Republic of Letters (1500 – 1800), The Disciplines (1700 – 1900), and (6) The Laboratory (1770 – 1970). There is also a helpful Conclusion chapter that brings things up to date and makes some assessment about the current state of knowledge reinvention. While the institutions are the focus, the authors discuss key individuals including one’s less familiar such as Hypatia and other women, Cassiodorus, Friedrich August Wolf, Fichte, the von Humboldt brothers and so on within chapters along the way. There are ample supporting references as well.

As indicated initially, my favorite parts include those about the changes in emphasis on elements of the classic trivium from ancient to modern times. That is, my antenna went up where the authors mention the dominance of rhetoric, grammar, then dialectic in the first 3 chapters and followed by a less clearly repeating of this pattern in the next 3 eras. McLuhan’s The Classical Trivium: The Place of Thomas Nashe in the Learning of His Time and Gordon’s McLuhan: A Guide for the Perplexed (Guides for the Perplexed) address this topic mostly to the Elizabethan period into the 4th time segment. On the one hand I knew less about the Republic of Letters and the origin of the Disciplines, so these chapters were especially interesting for me. Books such as Ong’s Rhetoric, Romance, and Technology: Studies in the Interaction of Expression and Culture and Menand’s The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America are also complementary in this regard. On the other hand, it was sobering to recognize my own story in the recent preeminence of The Laboratory where the authors’ state (on page 265) that “The new knowledge economy entices many university scholars out of their professional disciplinary networks and into a host of connections to corporate entrepreneurs, managers and in-house scientists . . . management consultancies such as McKinsey & Co. recruit talented minds from academia and make them into experimental social scientists. Redesigning . . . institutions to ‘mobilize minds’ for economic gain . . . [and] intellectual excitement . . .” McDuff’s The Firm: The Story of McKinsey and Its Secret Influence on American Business and Kiechel’s The Lords of Strategy: The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World relate here as well.

In the final chapter, the authors conclude that the six institutions remain (even though the monastery is marginalized) and affect each other. They continue to be buffeted and influenced by an ongoing stream of economic, political and technological developments such as the Internet. Moreover, McNeely and Wolverton decry the diminutions of academic disciplines, the difficulty in more widespread interdisciplinary collaboration, the hegemony of the laboratory, and the undermining of humanistic discussions by unbounded faith in science as a result. (This book was first published in 2008, so more recent occurrences such as those reflected in Gladstone’s The Trouble with Reality: A Rumination on Moral Panic in Our Time are not included).

Finally, there are less author comments on future direction and trends. Could we be reiterating the pattern in which classic trivium elements have been emphasized with a return to an age of rhetoric or more balance among the three? Perhaps as I combine some of their final statements (on pages 273-74), we can hope that “People in the future . . . [will] still teach, learn, and carry out research in places . . . [transformed] into spaces of active institutional experimentation and pedagogical innovation . . . [where] access to codified knowledge on-line . . . [will allow] a focus on . . . experiential learning. . . outside . . . with the chance to apply and refine . . . knowledge . . . for social betterment . . . in the most empowering . . . and humane senses.”

[Mackenzie Brooks · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this was a good book but I just kept falling asleep every time I picked it up.

[Dion Yulianto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sepanjang masa, seiring perkembangan peradaban manusia, ilmu pengetahuan terus menerus ditemukan, diperbarui, dan disimpan. Umat manusia membuat lembaga-lembaga untuk memastikan bahwa semua pengetahuan tercatat dan terpelihara agar tidak hilang (meskipun kehilangan dahsyat ilmu pengetahuan sering kali tak bisa dihindarkan.) Para pengumpul dan pencatat ilmu pengetahuan yang pertama adalah para pustakawan di Perpustakaan Alexandria yang dipelopori oleh para penguasa Yunani yang mencintai pengetahuan sekitar tahun 300 SM. Ribuan atau mungkin ratusan ribu gulungan papirus merekam berbagai pengetahuan dan kebijakan dunia kuno dari berbagai tempat yang kemudian disalin dan digandakan secara manual untuk kemudian disimpan di bangunan perpustakaan kuno yang lebih menyerupai museum. Uniknya, para pustakawan sering meminjam naskah dan gulungan kuno dari berbagai tempat untuk disalin dan digandakan, tetapi mereka mengembalikan naskah salinannya, bukan yang asli kepada pemilik aslinya. Dan kemudian perpustakaan pertama di dunia ini hancur karena sebab sebab yang lebih banyak bersifat politis ketimbang bencana alam.

Penjaga ilmu pengetahuan selanjutnya jatuh ke tangan para biarawan Katolik, yang mencatat semua teks teks kuno. Awalnya hanya teks keagamaan, namun akhirnya semua teks Latin pun dicatat dan dipelihara. Biara dengan demikian menjadi semacam dokumentasi dari dunia Barat saat kawasan ini mengalami masa-masa kejatuhannya yang paling gelap menyusul runtuhnya Kekaisaran Roma dan ketika Eropa diliputi kegelapan dari abad ke 5 M sampai menjelang Renaisance pada abad ke 11 dan 12 ketika univeraitas-universitas pertama mulai berdiri di Eropa. Dunia berutang banyak pada para ilmuwan Muslim yang mengisi kekosongan lini masa ini. Ketika Eropa mulai melupakan kekayaan pengetahuan Yunani dan Romawi kuno, pada ilmuwan muslim di Baghdad dan Andalusia tekun menerjemahkan, menyalin, dan melestarikan naskah-naskah dari era Yunani Romawi, memadukannya dengan pengetahuan kuno dari India dan Mesopotamia, dan bahkan menambahkan khazanah baru dalam ranah pengetahuan. Sumbangsih besar mereka dalam melestarikan ilmu pengetahuan kuno menjadi dasar bagi dibangunnya penjaga ilmu pengetahuan berikutnya: Universitas.

Tiga universitas pertama di Eropa ada di Paris, Bologna, dan Praha. Masing - masing berfokus pada bidang ilmu sosial, kedokteran, dan hukum. Dari sini, universitas mempelajari dan menguak kembali karya karya kuno dan mengembangkannya sehingga menyediakan cukup banyak bahan bakar bagi kemunculan Renaisance di Eropa. Tapi sebelum itu, Eropa yang dikuasai oleh otoriterisme agama terpaksa menyembunyikan ilmu pengetahuan dalam korespondensi rahasia dalam bentuk Republik Surat. Temuan Galileo dan Copernicus yang mematahkan klaim kaum Agamawan tentang Bumi sebagai pusat alam semesta menjadikan para ilmuwan harus bersembunyi demi menghindari ancaman kaum Agamawan yg didukung pemerintah kerajaan yang bertaklid buta. Baru kemudian di abad 17, universitas mengalami perkembangan dan spesialisasinya di Jerman sehingga menjadi cikal bakal universitas modern.

Perkembangan ini mengarah pada munculnya lembaga riset, yang menjadi penjaga ilmu pengetahuan selanjutnya. Era abad 18 hingga 20 menjadi era ketika penelitian dan riset di laboratorium digencarkan. Berbagai data pun dipanen dalam jumlah besar sehingga menghasilkan kelimpahan yang tak terbayangkan sebelumnya. Hasil dari begitu banyaknya data ini adalah lompatan besar (pendaratan manusia pertama di Bulan) maupun ancaman besar (penemuan bom atom). Dan kemudian, ketika ilmu pengetahuan dan informasi tidak lagi ekslusif di tangan ilmuwan, diciptakan komputer sebagai peranti penyimpan data dan kemudian malah berkembang menjadi sarana penghubung antarmanusia yang paling canggih dan telah merevolusi dunia ilmu pengetahuan: internet.

Buku yang sangat bagus, sayang diterjemahkan dengan kurang maksimal. Tiga bintang untuk para penjaga.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Anyone who truly knows me will be fully cognisant of the fact that I have an affinity for torturing myself. My reading habits often are affected by this trait. I am very much a hate-reader, and this book was no exception to this rule.

I wanted to hate this book, but despite its emetically pretentious premise, it nonetheless captured my heart and mind. A primer on ancient Greek civilisation proceeds a well-worded introduction which weaves together the common, timeless themes regarding the acquistion of knowledge (i.e. the library) from every corner of the earth, and very quickly makes its way to present-day, discussing the influence of the internet on our information diet.

Altogether, I was pleased.

[Christopher Fuchs · Rating 2 out of 5]

An OK book. Enlightening, but written in an overly academic style that is pretty dry and verbose. The authors take you step by step through an interesting historical arc of knowledge creation and preservation: library, monastery, university, the Republic of Letters, disciplines, and the laboratory. It’s an interesting approach. Among their conclusions is that the Internet is just an extension of the laboratory, the latter defined as the dominant form of knowledge creation and information sharing in the modern world. This was not persuasive, and it is easy to argue that the Internet is its own animal beyond the confines of the laboratory.

[Jean Dupenloup · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book presents a worthy endeavor, and, simply put, a good idea.

However, not all good ideas turn into good books. While the author’s elucidations about the way knowledge has been preserved over time in the western world are somewhat interesting, I found the book poorly written to the point of boorishness.

I didn’t retain anything from it, and can’t even think of a nugget or two I took away from the book.

Perhaps the fault is mine, but honestly I think it’s likelier they book is just not engaging enough.

A good idea, a good attempt, and one boring read.

[Grifka · Rating 2 out of 5]

the book claims it doesn't want to be eurocentric, yet it very much so is? overall, appreciate the chronological order of events (missing out alot of non-European history but okay), pretty well-written. the book will be getting a shit review, nevertheless, because of the reason mentioned previously, and due to the absolute trauma experienced during the uni course that encouraged us to read this book.

[Richard Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating read, well researched and carefully footnoted for further study

Fascinating read, well researched and carefully footnoted for further study. I can see the accelerating pace of knowledge development in a broad historical context. The next challenge involves the application of knowledge in politics which is stuck in outdated power plays.

[Casey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Would not recommend. Really didn't cover Internet al all. Suggest author take "History of the Internet" from University of Michigan (via Coursera MOOC online) bby Dr. Charles Severance. Now THAT course explains how the Internet evolved.

[LT]

Contrary Kyle Harrison

[Aliza Izet Hidayat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice

[Maulana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ya Allah jelek bangett terjemahannya ....

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite a stab at intellectual history covering over two millennia. Neat jacket illustration!
The authors cover their sweeping topic in 6 chapters plus a useful Conclusion:
1. The Library - which I grade as B- at best. The logic fragmented, writing not crisp, observations not woven into a clear theme, and 'Library" only defined after 15 pages, not as a gathering "to amass scrolls" but a place for "collation, translation, and synthesis" and "to recombine contents and ad commentary and analysis." A scattering of points made. The last 1 1/2 pages seem confusing - and I doubt it's thus received solely to me.
2. The Monastery - Good chapter
3. The University - Quite good chapter
4. The [virtual] Republic of Letters - a stretch to grasp their concept through a scrim. Better termed 'Scholar-net'? or 'Mastery worldwide'?
5. The Disciplines - Good chapter, though this, like all these 6 chapter headings, addresses "workshops of masters and students" not the physical repositories of the library, or the manuscript reproduction of the monastery, or the so-called 'Republic of Letters.'
6. The Laboratory - Fairly good comprehensive chapter
[7] Conclusion - helps understand the book as a whole, though a poorly written conclusion.

My evaluation:- An interesting skimming of these six historic dominant realms of knowledge exchange and propagation. W.W. Norton desperately needed an editor to clear this up, for it's merely a fair penultimate draft. Must probably be a fun undergraduate course to take! Stimulates thought, and thus a fine publication.
It could be used to draw comparisons with the stages of printed-word economic technological conditions (carvings, cuneiform, palm, papyrus, block printing, type setting, mono & linotype, photography, microfilm, digitization), or the stages of political maturing during 2000 years?

As a coherently narrative of intellectual history, it falls severely short. And its thesis is not at all convincingly laid forth. Indeed, the title word "Reinventing"is untrue, at least misleading and obfuscating. Chosen for its sales promotion?

People and ideas drift in and out within single paragraphs and things I wanted to know more about were not expanded upon in favor of things I did not feel contributed to the theme of the book. (e.g. in the laboratory re Curie, Pasteur, and Hull House.)

Not nearly current in 2008 when published. Overlooks knowledge lectures remotely available (Great Courses.com for over 25 years via CDs and DVDs with immense range of subjects. And universities since the 1990s moving into online credit courses in engineering and ranging to Medieval manuscript hands). The style floats somewhere between academic and popular, though frequently it is engaging.

Where the book succeeds is giving the reader a rough sense of the evolution and historical flow of the form and structure of learning, its transmission, and the contexts that surround these shifts -- from oral to written culture, then from the learned individual into the institutional setting and corporate sponsorship. It leaves one with the feeling that no intellectual paradigm can be taken for granted. E.g. university online learning courses emerging in this century.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the most creative historical studies I've read in a long time. McNeely and Wolverton situate the institutions of knowledge production and dissemination in six different eras. In each, their account suggests that different ways of creating knowledge affect the dominant forms (e.g. visual or aural) that it takes. Another key theme is the interplay of knowledge and power. Unlike Foucauldian approaches that sometimes reduce knowledge to a discourse of control and domination or naively whiggish interpretations that suggest that intellectual production can be separated from its social context, the authors indicate how institutions often rely on, sometimes reinforce and sometimes challenge dominant social forces. This is a strikingly innovative book, graced by lively, accessible prose and grounded in impressive research and thoughtful contemplation.

Full disclosure: The authors are colleagues and friends of mine.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

The theme is very good. But the warnings started from reading the title: reinventing knowledge? And that is the precise level of the whole volume. Dull scholastic text following a story, the kind the Grimm Brothers would weave. 21st century humans know some vague references to a building that hosted many written information in the city of Alexandria. Yet these two authors are stopping short of the shopping list of Demetrius of Phaleron. They take texts that might as well have been the Farmer's Almanac and with no consideration for the context they invent their story. The Sophists? Well, the two know them perfectly well. They omit the fact that the christians destroyed every text they found out and now we have only the sayings of one Socrates, a character in the witty stories of Plato. And so on...

[Tiffany Conner · Rating 3 out of 5]

There was some very fascinating history in this book. Tidbits mainly. The authors did a respectable job of making a very ambitious argument in such a small book. However, I think the subjected matter would have been more appropriately respected with a series of works, rather than one somewhat disappointing piece. The introduction reveals that the authors (a married couple) gave coures at the University of Oregon which dealt with their theories surrounding the idea of the library, monastery, correspondence, and laboratory as historic engines of knowledge exchange and propagation. I imagine it was a probably a fun course to take! I may have rather enjoyed such a course in my student days. Perhaps more than I did the book.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reinventing Knowledge is a breezy read examining the history of knowledge from the library, through the monastery, the university, the republic of letters, the disciplines, and the laboratory. It is well written and contains excellent stories (experts will quibble about details - I could quibble about the author's choices of sources - religion is sometimes taken seriously and sometimes dismissed), though not always a coherent argument. But it is aware enough of the modern confusion of information with knowledge and reflective enough about the advantages and disadvantages of our historical moment, mixing the disciplines and the lab and losing the wisdom of the humanities, that I would recommend it.

[Natalie Janes · Rating 2 out of 5]

Despite what I had been assured by my history teacher, this book was not a pleasant break from mandated school reads. I recommend it only for those of you who are either historians or common knowledge-savvy - definitely not, I discovered, an interesting read for a 9th grader. While this may go to say for countless books meant for an older crowd, I maintain that this book was genuinely boring. Aside from some intriguing anecdotes periodically placed throughout each chapter, these points never seemed to be summoned together.

[Liam · Rating 5 out of 5]

"This book is thus a history of institutions of knowledge. It chronicles the six institutions that have dominated Western intellectual life since ancient times: the library, the monastery, the university, the Republic of Letters, the disciplines, and the laboratory. Together these institutions have safeguarded knowledge through the ages by acting as interfaces between scholars and the res of society. ... In times of upheaval, individuals and small communities reinvented knowledge in founding new institutions." (xvi)

[Rachel Bayles · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really liked this book, but it needs to be twice as long to do what it's trying to do. And the last quarter of it is thoroughly jammed together. It does give the reader that feeling of excitement about the great sweep of knowledge development over the course of human history. And in doing so, forgives us for how far we haven't come. But it needs to expand on the overall story, or be much more cleverly edited.

[Kristi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is my cup of tea. It discusses the history of learning and how we collect and retain knowledge, having chapters on libraries, monasteries, and universities, among others. It reminds me of a paper I wrote once on the connection between libraries and museums, both being institutions of collecting. Being an art history major and a librarian, this book facinated me.

[Plamen Miltenoff · Rating 3 out of 5]

p. 90
the earliest and most important Parisian colleges were those of the newly established mendicant orders, the Dominicans and the Franciscans.
Dominican Guzman of Castile, established his order to combat heresy in urbanized Italy and Southern France, specifically among the Cathars, who practiced radically antimaterialistic Christianity, possibly transmitted from Bulgaria.

[Thequaminator · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some good points, but for the most part promises more than it delivers. It felt like that author was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and thus made some good points, but was not a great fit to the authors theory of knowledge. After all those words the conclusions were not very original, although the last chapters were better than the first couple.