Loading ...
I’ve heard a rumor that my “Gifts of the Holy Spirit” posts were somewhat heavy sledding for the casual reader, so I thought maybe I’d try to offer something a little lighter. I say a little… but not too much lighter, because today’s topic is in fact quite a serious business. I want to say a few words about the heinous evil wrought on our society by that modernist monstrosity, the metric system. (I dedicate this post to the good Catharina Senensis, since we were unable to finish our conversation on this fascinating topic, but also to my high school friends, with whom I doggedly pursued it on many happy occasions.)
All through my grade school days I was regularly told about the wonderfulness of the metric system. So civilized! So easy to convert! The enlightened Europeans have taken to using it everywhere, don’t you know, and isn’t it a shame that we backwards Americans insist on clinging to our anachronistic old English (this must be said with the emphasis on “old”) units? As school children we were indoctrinated into the pro-metric camp through conversion worksheets designed to teach us how much “easier” metric really was. On one side, we were asked to make various conversions using the Imperial units; on the other side we were asked to do similar conversions using metric. “Don’t you see,” our teachers would ask when we were finished, “how much easier things would be if our whole country would use metric?”
Easier indeed! The road to Hell usually is, though to be perfectly frank, I don’t think the old English units cause very much difficulty to very many people. Despite living in a backwards country that continues to shun the use of metric, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve actually needed to do the kinds of detailed conversions represented on those grade school worksheets. Those people who do have jobs that require them to convert units regularly, presumably get computer programs to do the heavy lifting for them — practically nobody these days is expected to do large amounts of mental math on the job. Meanwhile, any small conveniences that might be gained through metrication are purchased at a heavy price: the dehumanizing of the universe as we know it.
For a first glimpse of what I mean, try looking up some recipes on the internet. Put an American one side by side with one from Britain or Canada. You’ll note that the American one calls for “cups” and “tablespoons”, and that the number of units called for in each case is almost always between 1/4 and 5. By contrast, the British or Canadian recipe is likely to call for “grams” of things. The number of units requested tends to be in the hundreds, or at any rate it is almost never a single-digit number. The impression one gets is that the Imperial units were developed specifically with an eye to helping people engaged in the preparation of human food, while the metric units were developed without any special consideration at all for the needs of human chefs. One gets that impression because, of course, it is precisely the case. The Imperial units were designed specifically to be used in cooking. And the metric ones, by contrast, are mainly drawn from the properties of natural things in the Earth (its polar circumference, the speed of light in a vacuum, the boiling point of water, etc.) Similarly with other units, the Imperial ones were designed to correspond to some length or volume or temperature that held some real significance for human life, while the metric ones were taken from nature. The main point is this: metric units were drawn up without any reference at all to anything distinctly human.
But so what? As aesthetically pleasing as it may be to write recipes using single-digit units, it’s not really significantly harder to make measuring tools for metric. Rulers can show centimeters as easily as they show inches; measuring beakers can just as easily be in milliliters as in cups. I’ve already said myself that calculators and computer programs make it so that nobody really has to labor too hard over conversions. So why does it matter where we get the numbers from, just so long as they’re standardized?
It does matter. It matters because, even when we don’t consciously think about them, units of measurement become for us the kind of “foundational” categories through which we see the world. Particularly for people like us who have been molded all our lives by modernist ideas, there is an inclination to see standard measurements as “objective” in a way that other descriptions are not. So, for example, if I ask, “how far is it from here to the post office?” the answer could be, “it’s four blocks” or “just a pleasant little walk” or “about the same distance as to your house” but if someone with an odometer steps in and says authoritatively “it’s half a kilometer” we tend to think of that as being, in some sense, the “real” answer, even if we wouldn’t always think of distances in those terms. Standardized units tend to represent, in our minds, what the world is “really” like. Thus, when our units are set with reference to distinctly human categories, we have more of a feeling of living in a human world. But when they aren’t…
Go back to the woman baking her cake with 425 grams of flour. Most likely she isn’t actively contemplating units of measurements as she works, but even without thinking much about it she will still presumably have some awareness that the units she is working with were not made with either flour or cooking in mind. They can be adapted for that use, of course, but this is an adaptation of a scale that is based on something else. The wider impression it creates is that the amount of flour needed for a cake suitable for human consumption is not one of the more basic facts of the universe. Our understanding of the world should naturally be framed in terms of the most “bedrock” facts, and the fact that you need X amount of flour to make a cake is somehow less fundamental (less important?) than the mass of 1 cubic centimeter of water at 4.5 degrees Celsius.
Again, the woman baking a cake most likely will not think explicitly about all of this, but when she lives in a world in which everything is measured in terms like these, it will inevitably shape her sensibilities. She will be left with the feeling that the world is “most fundamentally” a collection of interacting natural forces, within which human beings have chosen to engage in various activities. The human activities, however, are not the most defining features of the planet, nor the most basic truths of its existence. What is most “real” or “objective” is the polar circumference of the planet. Or the temperature at which water freezes. Or the wavelength of light emitted by a specific atomic transition. The humanity of her world will begin to seem, even to her, to be a kind of accident or accretion, something forged out of a more elemental reality. Things that have almost no significance to life as she knows it will be transformed into the touchstones from which everything else derives its meaning.
Even for those who don’t already know, it should hardly come as a surprise that the metric system was bequeathed to us by a group of people who were, quite self-consciously, trying to dehumanize the world. The French Revolutionaries were very serious about their ambition of detaching people from natural human affections and eradicating natural human impulses. We see this most obviously, perhaps, from “reforms” like the destruction of churches and executing priests and religious. But we can also see the general tendency of the revolutionaries’ thoughts through things like the Republican Calendar with its 10-day weeks and 10 hours per day. The obvious purpose was to sever the people from tradition and from the rhythm of life that had organically grown up through generations of their ancestors.
A full analysis of the French Revolution would be beyond the aim of this post, but we should at least note that the dehumanizing effects of the metric system are not accidental. The authors of metric wanted people to come to see themselves as a semi-accidental part of a universe that was not created for them. They wanted it, because a universe that was not made with us in mind could be seen as territory to be conquered and remade in the Revolutionaries’ own image. Today, relevantly similar patterns can be seen in the people who advocate metric with the most enthusiasm. It’s clear that, for some of the scientists who rhapsodize about it, metric isn’t just a more convenient system of measurement. It is philosophically pleasing to them, precisely because it has been purged of the taint of anthropocentrism. Metric is harmonious with the materialist’s cherished idea that man is merely another of the many oddities and accidents spit out by a mechanistic universe.
It’s true that, on a day-to-day level, Imperial units don’t always seem significantly different from metric ones. Is a meter really intrinsically less “human” than a yard? Do inches actually correspond better to ordinary human objects than centimeters? For obvious reasons, we become most familiar with the metric measurements that are closest to the standard Imperial ones, and this makes the philosophical differences between them less obvious. Still, considered in broader terms, I think we do often find a more comfortable match between Imperial units and human life.
Just for one example, consider the much-maligned Fahrenheit temperature scale. My schoolteachers, once again, made some hay out of how much “less simple” it was than Celsius, wherein the freezing and boiling points of water are so easily remembered. Indeed, Celsius may be less bad than some scales, in that the behavior of water isn’t totally irrelevant to human life. In my household we do both boil and freeze water on a regular basis (though we don’t really need to know the temperatures at which it boils and freezes in order to do this.) But if you look at the Fahrenheit scale, you’ll note that the degrees between 0 and 100 mark out the temperatures that are most likely to occur in actual earthly weather, and thus, the temperatures that are of greatest relevance for human life. Zero degrees Fahrenheit is very cold for people, though not unlivable for limited periods, particularly given adequate warm clothing. One hundred degrees is quite uncomfortably hot. It’s true that the human comfort range tends more towards the high end of the scale than the low end, but then, this reflects something true about humans: our natural heating mechanisms are more effective than our natural cooling mechanisms. We generally like the outside temperature to be markedly below our own body temperature, and we can more easily find ways to cope with sub-optimal temperatures than with above-optimal temperatures. It is not accidental that the Fahrenheit scale should reflect this. Everyone agrees that Gabriel Fahrenheit used the temperature of the human body as one of his primary markers in creating the scale, and many think that the coldest temperatures recorded in his hometown of Danzig, Poland were used to mark the other extreme. Though there is some dispute about the exact development of Fahrenheit, it seems clear that human properties were among the ones used in designing the scale. It is, in other words, a deliberately anthropocentric method of measurement.
It is a commonplace among lovers of tradition to observe that it is difficult to predict the ramifications when a seemingly-unimportant tradition is abolished. The metric system is an excellent example on a modernist incursion on an already-developed set of human traditions. I hope that I can call all Traditional Catholics to join me in spurning the metric system. Perhaps, on a practical level, we can’t entirely avoid using it, but when preferences are called for, ours should be clearly against this modernist monstrosity that has been foisted on us by murderers and blasphemers.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
I loved this post! I had actually reflected on this topic myself, as I had lived in France for almost a year and in so doing learned a great deal about the US. It was asked me by a curious francaise if it were true that we still measure things in “thumbs” in the US. This took me by surprise, until I realized that the translation of “inch” in French is “pouce”, or thumb. Then it occurred to me that that very likely was the origin of the inch, as it is very close in measurement to the measurement of the thumb to the knuckle. Then the humanity of the whole system became clear; we measure things in feet, “thumbs”, yards (which is very nearly a single step of a grown man), etc. For a fleeting moment I was proud that the US had clung to a great tradition that the more traditional societies of Europe have tossed off. My pride turned to envy, though, when an Irishman pointed out that he still referred to his weight in pounds and STONES. Now that is a glorious unit of measure! I want to get myself an Irish scale just so I can start using it myself. Anyone else up for the addition of “stones” to the American system?
I admit to being envious of “stones” as a unit of measure
I third that envy.
In looking at old land records in Ireland, one finds that the parcels are measured in acres, roods and perches. (I could look it up, but I’m too busy now).
Land in the U.S. is described in sections, half sections, quarter sections, quarter-quarters, etc. in the lands surveyed first in the old Northwest Territory. Kinda sounds metric to me. And that was just before the French Revolution. Maybe we should bring back roods and perches.
I favor roods and perches over quarter-quarters
I heartily enjoyed this post, Clara. I just finished Belloc’s Economics for Helen, which inspired a bit of research into the Old English Monetary System. I was pleased to find that it also used a very humane system for money even, but I was displeased to find that in the past few scores, it has been dropped in favor of a decimal based monetary system for the Pound Sterling. I wonder what sort of practical applications there could be of a more humane system of measuring? I’ve thought about the possibility of introducing local currencies that are based on the old English Pound, but I don’t know about that possibility. I’d love to know what others think about this. God bless.
Pax Christi.
I have been resisting metrics in the kitchen for 40 years. I was happy to see that, after a brief flirt with forcing metrics onto home equipment, the manufacturers of measuring cups have finally relagated the metric units on liquid measuring cups to the back of the cup. I have always loved it that the measurements were based quite often on the length of the king’s thumb or stride.
You are right that cooking is the most human of activities using weights and measures. I cherish my old cookbooks and am glad that US publishers never have given in to metrics.
It’s just too bad the food companies are not better at resisting. Wine should come in ounces, not liters or grams or whatever.
Vive le Roi! Et L’ancien Régime!
As an American who has lived in both Germany and for the last 25 years in Canada, my comfort level with the metric system depends on what is being measured. As you article correctly points out, those things which have a very human reference point simply seem to make more sense in the Imperial system. For example, while I tend to think in metric when driving, I cannot think of my weight or height in anything other than Imperial measure (however comforting the lower weight number in kilos might be!) Whenever I take my children gto the doctor, I still give their temperature in Fahrenheit (although I admit I’m comfortable with a room temperature of 22 degrees Celsius). Nonetheless, thank you for an insightful article which I initially approached with a raised eyebrow!
Funny how comfortable I am in milligrams for drugs and liters for intake and output–though as an aging physician, I remain stuck in the English system of my youth. I recall the circumference of the earth as 25,000 miles. I have never had occasion to look that up on one of Clara’s tables to convert it to something else.
Most important to me is the Fahrenheit temperature scale. I suspect this provided the denouement of the metric conversion in medicine. About 40 years ago as I was fresh out of medical school, some large hospitals were using Centigrade for fever. It floundered for nearly ten years before it was virtually abandoned. For humans a very few degrees F. make a lot of difference in comfort and in illness, the Centigrade scale obscures this into fractions of a degree. So the flip side of 1 cup of flour is a full degree of fever, F-wise means a lot more than 0.5 C.
Clara helped me further understand why the great metric march failed in the USA.
In science and much of engineering, other systems are used, but pounds of weight, cups of flour, miles per hour, the English system will probably reign for much, much longer in the USA.
I love how ALL of our teachers bravely told us that the metric system would dominate our American adulthood- and how we would be LOST without knowing it. And here we are… I still buy gas in (expensive) gallons, and I still live 15 miles from Napa. Ho hum, so go the threats of many a schoolteacher.
I recently heard the NYSDOT was going to go back to the English system. They are the only governmental agency that uses metric to my knowledge.
I have hated the metric system since I first learned it in 7th grade. It is the epitome of modernist ubiquity. I even wrote my senator to request that he would oppose forcefully implementing it in the future; luckily he (Ted Kennedy) agreed with me and said he opposed it.
This whole post is a joke, right? ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons and every other fractionalized imperial measurement unit is silly - and I grew up with the system.
mw,
not really silly. What makes you think fractions are silly? They aren’t. There’s nothing fundamental about the decimal system — that is, working with base 10 numbers — except that 10 is the number of fingers we have. If you wanted to use the quartile system, ie base 4, you’d be fine. the number “4″ would become “10″, 16 would become 100, etc.
as an actual scientist, I can say that people who need numerical accuracy use whatever system works and is most convenient. Hence, people who work with electrons set the mass of the electron to … 1 unit. Likewise, many cosmologists work with units where the speed of light is 1. Why can’t humans work with units that are connatural their own scale, and use fractional divisions when they are the most appropriate?
Just as a bit of a follow up: I really shake my head sometimes about the way numbers are taught. People seem to think there’s something fundamentally weird about, say, 1/3 being a number that can’t be represented in the decimal system (ie, 1/3 = 0.33333…). But that’s just showing how the decimal system fails. If you were using base 3 numbers, then 1/3 = 0.1, simpliciter.
Ambrosius,
There is actually an interesting issue here, though not what you were referring to I think. This turns on the question of what a unit is, the ontology of unit-ness and the relation of the unit qua our understanding via the logos to the unity of being and in turn its relationship to the being of beings.
Aristotle, for instance, insisted that 1 was not a number and had serious doubts about 2. Ratios of your sort could be embraced within analogies to other ratios 1:3::2:6 and so forth. However, irrational numbers like pi were, for the Greeks, ontologically untenable. Which is part of the reason they worked so hard to rid their geometry of them. The modern embrace of such things beginning with the development of analytic geometry in the 16th century is at the heart of the modern constructivism that is the essence of modernism.
You raise an interesting point, Doctor. It made me think, first of all, of the willingness, at a very late date, of (at first, only a few) mathematicians to endorse the idea of actual infinities, sets of infinite size and so on. Sets, whether of infinite size or not, seem especially liable to your charge of “modern constructivism”.
But as to whether such things are ontologically untenable - I don’t know, right off, how to sort that issue out. Aristotle also seems to think that there are only as mnay numbers as there are objects in the world - but that seems plain wrong to me, not from a constructivist perspective, but from a realist (with respect to mathematical objects) perspective. Perhaps you can say more, though, about what you take the pre-modern ontological grounding of such objects to be.
As far as the modern discussion goes, if we’re to believe Stewart Shapiro, most mathematicians are realists with respect to mathematical objects, i.e. they exist independently of the mind. Some would call these folks platonists. That’s where my sympathies are. But those who endorse this view have the epistemological question to answer: if these objects are mind independent, how do we know them?
Proper modern day constructivists think that mathematical objects are not mind independent - which makes the epistemological question easy, but (perhaps) the consensus among minds/cultures/diachronically, and the strong intuition (among some) that such simply cannot be the case hard to explain/answer.
I don’t really think it is correct to say that modern mathematicians are “realists” for the simple reason that I don’t think they much care one way or the other. That is, while it may be empirically true that you could get a majority of modern mathematicians to say that they agree with the proposition: numbers are real, ontologically independent (what? - beings? entities?), it’s not clear that that would matter that much more than getting a majority of people on Times Square on Tuesday to agree with the proposition.
As far as I can tell (which, admittedly isn’t very far), modern mathematicians are more or less in the same boat as modern physicists — they quite literally don’t know what they’re talking about. That is to say, they are very capable of using mathematical models, etc. to achieve useful results, but they basically prescind from the ontological question of what, exactly, it is they’re talking about. The absolute best they can manage is a pragmatic (and Pragmatic) appeal to use, where that encompasses not only something like engineering, but also use in the sense of “useful result.” That’s precisely why they must have recourse to mathematics, because they can’t say what it is they’re doing. Now the question of the relationship of their models (which are by definition mathematically convenient simplifications) to the world remains very vague, to the point that, frankly, both the scientists and the philosophers of science should be ashamed. This is exactly what Husserl was talking about in The Crisis of the European Sciences and if anything the crisis is even more acute today than in the 1920’s when Husserl began to notice how the new Quantum physics was, well, crazy.
The constructivist impulse as I’m referring it here goes far beyond those modern philosophers of mathematics. We live in a constructivist age which was birthed in the corruption of first philosophy at the start of the modern age. Kant represented this constructivism taken to its most sublime pitch, but even in the so-called realism of contemporary analytic philosophy the game has already been given away in the acceptance of the basic assumptions of the modern project and the demand for epistemological grounding. What, then, is Aristotle’s or Thomas’ epistemology? When you get right down to it, the question is almost non-sensical. If you demand an answer you get something on the order of the soul’s touching the world.
Ray, et al. Land in Minnesota is measured using what is known as the “public lands” system - township, range section, etc. But that system itself is based on “chains” . One chain = 66 feet = 100 links. Note that one mile = 80 chains, and one section (nominally) = one square mile = 640 acres. Also a “rood” aka rod, pole, or perch = 16 1/2 feet, or 1/4 chain.
The 66 foot chain was the basis of virtually all land surveying in the US until quite recently, and many property deeds are still in chains, links and poles. And if you go to Home Depot you might notice that a lot fencing is sold in 330 foot (i.e. 5 chain) rolls. Here in (basically) the original 13 colonies, we don’t use the public land system, so I get to deal with all of these units, literally on a daily basis! I LOVE MY JOB!!! Nowadays, though, we use feet and decimal feet rather than inches.
And for a number of years, until about 1999, the Federal Highway Administration mandated the metric system be used for any projects that used federal monies. That means that I get to deal with that despicable system as well - reading highway plans.