In our latest set of readings, the topic covered was sexuality. In them, I found the article "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" perhaps the most thought-provoking. The article underscores one of the critical fallacies of the social sciences: that certain behavior is "normal," that other behavior is "abnormal," and that anyone guilty of the latter must be reconditioned to the former. Irrespective of biology, irrespective of personal feelings towards one's "condition," irrespective even of the overall impact on one's quality of life, all too often the mission of the social scientist is to attempt to establish or engineer a standard of normalcy when it is either fallacious or non-existent. Even in the face of logically irrefutable evidence, some of the most logical minds in a discipline are still inclined to reject anything that is contrary to what they've been conditioned to believe. This is perhaps rooted in the logical fallacy known as the self-serving bias, the unspoken statement made by many professionals is, "it's not that my idea is wrong, it's just I can't find any of the right evidence."
These beliefs are so engrained in our society that it's perhaps to be expected that even people who make their living off of objectivity and scientific thinking are impeded by it. Indeed, social science in our society doesn't merely reflect certain fallacious assumptions about sex and life in general, it actually helps perpetuate it! That a man such as Freud, whose approach to psychology revolutionized the way people look at the human mind, found much of his research on sexuality reduced to pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo is indicative of this.
It is unfortunate that the social scientific community is so blatantly ostracizing clear evidence of its own historical and contemporary inconsistencies with biology, but there is also a good deal of hope in this regard. That we are examining this part of our social fabric at all, which is nearly 3 millenia old, shows an important first step in addressing our own unscientific assumptions about reality and what we are as a species.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Institutionalized Barbarism
In our most recent set of assigned reading articles, one in particular struck me at what has been a raw nerve for some time now: Abu Ghraib and the use of torture by America in the War on Terror. I began seriously studying this issue earlier this year, and was horrified by what I discovered. In addition, I read "How to Break a Terrorist" written by Matthew Alexander, a senior interrogator who performed interrogations in the fallout following the Abu Ghraib scandal, when there was still intense debate within the military. This book opened my eyes to the nature of interrogations, and to the implications of different approaches. The 'old school' of interrogation involves control and domination of the detainee, whereas the methods being tested by Alexander and his colleagues are based on rapport and trust. The efficacy of the latter method over the former is made obvious in this book, as it alone brings about the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, then-leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and an earth-shattering blow to sectarian violence in the region.
The recognition of these facts alone makes their end results all too predictable. In Alexander's methods, we see a tendency to respect the culture and human dignity of one's captives in order to receive a reliable flow of useful information. In spite of what this approach's critics say, it is by no means a 'soft' approach to interrogation; it forces detainees to fully consider the implications their noncooperation will have for both themselves and their families. This approach should be demanded, if not expected, of any society that would call itself rational, humanistic, and just.
In the Abu Ghraib methods, however, we see a swift departure from anything rational or just. Emphasizing dominance and control as the cornerstones of interrogation puts the process on the same level as rape. Dehumanization, exerting dominance and force, selfish exploitation of another; can we really examine dominance and control in interrogation without drawing harrowing parallels to rape? Under those methods, devout muslims experienced belittlement of their religion, attempted conversions, forced violations of their religious doctrine, and countless other offenses. The fact that this is all done under force and threats of violence makes such interrogation and a rape attack different only in the venue of the assault.
Upon closer examination of this course and such treatment of detainees, it's clear that in our society it is not merely gender that is a factor in oppression. The circumstances that lead to dehumanization need not be merely sexual in nature; in our society, it seems we are all too willing to dehumanize people to attain what we desire, the only distinction that gender and religion have is that people like to use them as their excuse to take part in doing so.
The recognition of these facts alone makes their end results all too predictable. In Alexander's methods, we see a tendency to respect the culture and human dignity of one's captives in order to receive a reliable flow of useful information. In spite of what this approach's critics say, it is by no means a 'soft' approach to interrogation; it forces detainees to fully consider the implications their noncooperation will have for both themselves and their families. This approach should be demanded, if not expected, of any society that would call itself rational, humanistic, and just.
In the Abu Ghraib methods, however, we see a swift departure from anything rational or just. Emphasizing dominance and control as the cornerstones of interrogation puts the process on the same level as rape. Dehumanization, exerting dominance and force, selfish exploitation of another; can we really examine dominance and control in interrogation without drawing harrowing parallels to rape? Under those methods, devout muslims experienced belittlement of their religion, attempted conversions, forced violations of their religious doctrine, and countless other offenses. The fact that this is all done under force and threats of violence makes such interrogation and a rape attack different only in the venue of the assault.
Upon closer examination of this course and such treatment of detainees, it's clear that in our society it is not merely gender that is a factor in oppression. The circumstances that lead to dehumanization need not be merely sexual in nature; in our society, it seems we are all too willing to dehumanize people to attain what we desire, the only distinction that gender and religion have is that people like to use them as their excuse to take part in doing so.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Jon and Kate Plus 8
For several years now, there has been a televised reality show called 'Jon and Kate Plus 8', a program that was designed to chronicle the lives of Jon and Kate Gosselin as they raised 8 children. In recent months, that paradigm has fallen apart, as Jon and Kate go through a contentious and heavily publicized divorce. It has recently intensified after TLC announced that the show would be renamed 'Kate Plus 8', and that Jon would have a less significant role on the show.
The shameful cause of their separation aside, the network's behavior is clearly sexist towards both parties, as it characterizes both Jon and Kate into the traditional roles of their respective genders. Irrespective of the fact that they have agreed to share custody of the children, it seems that TLC is all too happy to simply paint Jon out of the show, regardless of the fact that he has shown interest in continuing his presence in their lives off the screen. It also implies that either Jon is too uncaring or Kate too culpable for the children for there to be any situation other than Kate raising them as a single mother.
Furthermore, it is very telling about the state of the family in our society when something as personal as this merited an hour long special when news first came out, and the fact that we don't have the common courtesy to let all parties involved resolve this with some degree of privacy.
The shameful cause of their separation aside, the network's behavior is clearly sexist towards both parties, as it characterizes both Jon and Kate into the traditional roles of their respective genders. Irrespective of the fact that they have agreed to share custody of the children, it seems that TLC is all too happy to simply paint Jon out of the show, regardless of the fact that he has shown interest in continuing his presence in their lives off the screen. It also implies that either Jon is too uncaring or Kate too culpable for the children for there to be any situation other than Kate raising them as a single mother.
Furthermore, it is very telling about the state of the family in our society when something as personal as this merited an hour long special when news first came out, and the fact that we don't have the common courtesy to let all parties involved resolve this with some degree of privacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
