User talk:Doug Weller/Progonoplexia

Mixed meanings

The article as originally written, appears to combine two distinct usages of this term, as well as material not supported by any of the cited sources.

"Progonoplexia is a concept originated in Ancient Greece to describe a fixation with genealogy, royal descent and family history."

The cited sources for this are Clogg and Stephenson.

Stephenson says "The Greeks have often been accused of dwelling in the past. Indeed, one critical phillihelene coined the term progonoplexia, or "ancestoritis", to describe this apparent obsession", apparently referring to Clogg whom others explicitly credit with coining the term. This doesn't even mention genealogy, let alone family history or royal descent. Likewise, it is clearly referring to criticisms leveled at modern Greeks, not ancient ones, and it makes it clear that the concept of such an obsession (not fixation, which has psychosexual overtones not associated with genealogy, at least for most genealogists) being called progonoplexia is of modern, not ancient derivation.

Clogg says "That an obsession with past glories should have developed is, in the circumstances, scarcely surprising. Progonoplexia, or 'ancestoritis', has been characteristic of so much of the country's cultural life and has given rise to the 'language question', the interminable, and at time violent, controversy over the degree to which spoken language of the people should be 'purified' to render it more akin to the supposed ideal of ancient Greek." (The paragraph continues talking about the two forms of the language, the modern spoken form vs the more pure ideal form.) Again, no mention of royalty, no mention of family history and no mention of genealogy. This appears to be referring to an obsession (again, not fixation) of modern Greeks with their cultural ancestors.

This is the same sort of meaning used by one of the sources in the middle paragraph, the work of Mylonas, described: Also known as Ancestoritis, Christos Mylonas described it as an "inate belief of a linear descent from the classical past", giving a "precept of national distinction within a highly contested spatial and cultural constellation",

While Mylonas does mention genealogy, it is not the personal genealogy of the beginning of this paragraph in our article - "a gathering of cultural, economic of political centres of Greek tradition-around the spatial and Orthodox stem of the state were proliferated through the synthetic constitution of the national genealogy and historicism." He continues, discussing irredentism and territorial advancement, of race or nation and motherland. This, again, is not genealogy as it is commonly understood, but as a cultural phenomenon of a nation. And again, this is talking about the modern Greeks.

This meaning is reflected in the last sentence of the article, if by nothing in between:

"It is similar to Arkhaiolatreia; a concept used to describe "excessive reverance of antiquity".

In summary then, Progonoplexia is a modern term, coined to reflect the Greek people's obsession with their national cultural heritage, not with their personal genealogy, royal ancestry, or family history.

This original usage contrasts with the usage of the last source, Zerubavel, who is using it as described. After the quoted text about the internet and Who Do You Think You Are?, he says "Such a deep obsession with ancestry ('progonoplexia')<7> is by no means a distinctly modern fad." Unfortunately, reference 7 is to the same Clogg book that, as we have seen, is relating to the obsessin of the Greeks with their cultural history. It appears, then, that Zerubavel has either misinterpreted the use Clogg was giving the word or has intentionally decided to broaden its meaning. Either way, this is a novel use of the word by Zeruvabel, and is distinct from the meaning given it by Clogg, Stephenson and Mylonas. In light of this, in only referring to Zeruvabel's lone usage, it is giving undue weight to this sense of the word, all the while citing Clogg (the original coiner of the term, it would appear), Stephenson, and Mylonas, who are using the original distinct meaning but giving no indication that their usage is different. (And none of them mention royal descent.)

Finally, the See also section links are an arbitrary selection of pages dealing with genealogical topics. That these are representative of Zerabuvel's 'obsession with genealogy' is far from clear, and why these particular pages were chosen is uncertain.

For these reasons, I will again rewrite the article to reflect the source material. Agricolae (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The newly added reference reads, "In their perverted and shallow view of the world, in their obsession with Greece's historical heritage (what the famous novelist George Theotokas called "progonoplaxia", or the worship of ancestors), they affected a quaint empty populism. . . ." Again, this is a reference to historical heritage, to culture and nationalism and not to genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead source in this article really should be Eviatar Zerubavel, the noted sociologist and possibly most competent and modern source to speak on the subject. He speaks of it as a concept he describes as a "deep obsession with Ancestry" - now we don't have a page on ancestry. It redirects to ancestor, which I've now wikilinked into the lede. I'd argue for the replacement of the term as a concept in the lede, and a broadening of it's meaning in modern parlance, based on my reading of Zerubavel. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The lede should give appropriate weight to the sources, and we have Theotokas and Vatikiotis and Clogg and Stephenson and Mylonas all using it one way, and we have Zerubavel using it differently and citing for that usage Clogg, who is using it the other way. Clearly, then, the weight of the sources is in favor of the cultural history usage, rather than Zerubavel's unique usage which is not supported by the very source he cites for it. Let's face it - either accidentally or intentionally, Zeruvabel misused the term, and a Wikipedia article should not reflect such an novel usage when his very source for the meaning of the term is using it differently. Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with your suggestion that Zerubavel's usage is unique. The word has been translated as Ancestoritis, which has even been used as the title for this publication relating to general genealogy, so not recent either. Willard C. Heiss (1982*). Ancestoritis, April 23, 1977 - August 14, 1982: Genealogical Column, the Indianapolis News. W. Heiss. Retrieved 29 November 2012. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). Paul Stephenson in the cited article sources also goes on to talk of it in a more general way. I really suggest you read on after his usage of the word. He is making the very valid points there that I made this article to teach you. Here is another article, on Greece, but using the term as a general word for Ancestor obsession, which should probably Redirect here too, that's the ancient concept that Zerubavel is discussing and what we should be reflecting here. the Foyer/Merib. Kolor. Journal on moving communities - Nr. 2. Garant. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-90-441-1320-4. Retrieved 29 November 2012. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that 'ancestor' has two distinct meanings. There is the specific use of the genealogist, where it refers to someone in the direct genetic line of ancestry of an individual, but there is also the generic usage - in this case, the Ancient Greeks are ancestors of the Modern Greeks in a cultural and (population) genetic sense, but no specific genealogical application is being made. Your newly cited source is explicitly referring to "the glorious past of Ancient Greek culture" (emphasis mine) and refers to it playing a role in the choice of the ancient form of the language over the modern one. Thus, this author is using the term "ancestor obsession" in the generic cultural sense and not the genealogical one, just like Theotokas, Vatikiotis, Clogg, Mylonas and yes, even Stephenson, who goes on to talk about nationalism distorting historical interpretation - again not the genealogical meaning. That an American newspaper columnist decided to name his genealogy column "Ancestoritis" in no way relates to the word progonoplexia, simply because the scholars using that term opted to use "ancestoritis" as a trivial English-language equivalent. The formulation of X has been translated as Y, and Y elsewhere has been used to represent Z, so X must represents Z is not valid - the phrase 'lost in translation' relates specifically to this failure of perfect equivalence between translated words. The usage of progonoplexia must be determined by nothing ore or less than the usage of progonoplexia itself. Agricolae (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to explain that this concept of nationalism is now a thing of the past, this view needs to move on, as has the coverage and extent of this word. I've explained I'm a quarter English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish. Most people don't come from one nation anymore and naturally like to take pride, and read about notable ancestry, from whatever country. The world is a mixed bunch nowadays. Each nation has it's own history. This is of undoubted importance to Europeans. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that this word became popular, it seems, soon after the production of The Exorcist in the 70s. I think the two are connected with regards how it's usage and notability has grown. I would like to speak about a similarity between Progonoplexia and Ancestor Posession, but this is the best source I could find for such statements as:

Ancestor posession is a similar term that has been treated differently by the Catholic church.William Kay, Robin Parry (4 November 2009). Exorcism and Deliverance. AuthenticMedia. pp. 95–. ISBN 978-1-84227-764-5. Retrieved 29 November 2012.

We, as Wikipedia editors, have no business trying to explain anything about the relative persistence of the concept of nationalism. Nor is it a place to promote one's opinions on what needs to happen to such a view. One cannot redefine a word because one does not like the implications of its most common usage. The personal heritage of a Wikipedia editor is of no relevance to what the sources cited say about the word and how they use it. And, no, there is no relationship whatsoever to a 1970s movie about something else entirely. Agricolae (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Kindly read the mainstream sources I am adding, some of which are being deleted unreasonably for further information about the use of the term in modern parlance. It seems very clearly related to ancestry than nationalism in the majority of modern sources. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of similar words

The similar words for Progonoplexia can be found in a "family history" section of a Penguin Adult book. This has been removed with criticism that the source doesn't mention the word. It clearly does and I'd kindly like the text replaced and source replaced. Adam Jacot de Boinod (5 August 2010). I Never Knew There Was a Word For It. Penguin Adult. pp. 259–. ISBN 978-0-14-102839-2. Retrieved 29 November 2012. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph because the first sentence was not supported by the cited source, and the second sentence appeared to be relating to the first sentence. As it turns out, it was not. I should have deleted it because the source does not call it similar to "anetolt", it groups it with "anes tolt" and and three other words as having to do with a Family Tree, without making any claim to similarity. Agricolae (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, ok, but the source does show the word has gained traction enough for notability, so I would like it replaced as a general source to help me scrape the deletion discussion on this one. Any chance? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)