Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Robot Allows High-Speed Testing of Chemicals
For the first time, toxic screening is underway for thousands of chemicals in daily use
By David Biello
Scientific American
October 13, 2011
Of the more than 80,000 chemicals used in the U.S., only
300 or so have ever undergone health and safety testing.
In fact, only five chemicals have ever been restricted
or banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). But now some 10,000 agricultural and industrial
chemicals-as well as food additives-will be screened for
toxicity for the first time, with the help of a rapid-
fire testing robot.
Mayday
Since 1886 the first of May has been the international day of commemoration (except in the US) of the “Chicago Martyrs” (worker leaders condemned to the gallows in the context of the general strikes for the eight hour day in the US) and of expression of the demands and struggles of that great historical and strongly identitarian subject, the proletariat, inexorably united in a period of capitalism, industrial capitalism, to some modes of organization, the great strikes and the mass unions, and to some places of mobilization, the factories. But to the degree that capitalism has been changing its forms of exploitation in order to dodge the workers conflicts and reappropriate their demands, passing from industrial capitalism to fordism and, from this, to the present postfordist mode of production, this date has been losing meaning until it became of holiday (for some) and completely devoid of content for almost everyone.
Because today that monolithic antagonistic subject has been replaced by a diffuse multiplicity of singularities that some dare to call the precariat. In the year 2001, a Milanese colelletive of precarious of the large service sector chains, the Chainworkers (http://www.chainworkers.org), issued a call for May first what was baptized the Mayday Parade. Its protagonists were atypical workers, remunerated and non-remunerated, with and without papers: these professionals of geographic and vital flights, fixers of temporality, experts in metamorphis who, linked by multiplicity, sought, in the difficult times of existential precarization, to celebrate and visibilize our struggles and dreams. The initiative caught on and was repeated year after year with increasing numbers and increasing expressiveness. Three years later, it was put on in the city of Barcelona as well, and this year anticipates these Maydays in no less than 16 cities European cities (see http://www.euromayday.org).
The Mayday Parade constitutes a means of visibilization of the new forms of rebellion, a moment of encounter for the movements, and practices of forms of self-organized politicization (social centers, rank-and-file unions, immigrant collectives, feminists, ecologists, hackers), a space of expression of its forms of communication (the parade as an expression of pride inherited from the movements of sexual liberation, but also all the media-activist artillery developed around the global movement against the summits of the powerful of the world) and a collective cry for rights lost (housing, health, education) or new ones (free money, universal citizenship), which day to day and from each situated form we try to begin and to construct from below
Diane Bell, on ‘Desperately Seeking Redemption’
Diane Bell discusses Marlo Morgan and Lynn V. Andrews, with obvious implications for others, placing it within the context of American Indian Movement (AIM) who had ‘protested, picketed, and passed resolutions condemning those individuals and institutions that packaged Indian sweat lodges, vision quests, shamanic healing, and sun dances for the spiritually hungry’. On Morgan and Andrews, Bell writes:
Morgan’s and Andrews’s readers often tell me that these books offer a vision of a world in which all life forms coexist in physical and spiritual harmony; where one person’s journey can undo centuries of abuse; where women are wise; where, despite differences in language, history, geography, economic status, and personal skills, we are all one. Here is community, meaning, belonging–all the,connectedness for which the self-absorbed, postindustrial, fragmented individual yearns. I certainly agree that we should be open to wisdom from a range of sources, but must we suspend all critical faculties in the process? It matters that the beliefs and practices of Native Americans and Australian Aborigines have been put through a cultural blender. It matters that the stories of those engaged in ongoing struggles for their very lives are marginalized, and that these representations of indigenous peoples are romantic and ahistorical. Morgan and Andrews shroud their “native teachers” in mystery while telling us that they hold the keys to true and authentic ways of knowing.
Marketers of neo-shamanic books and workshops claim that indigenous wisdom is part of our common human heritage. By sharing such knowledge, the argument goes, together we can save the planet. But is this sharing or a further appropriation? There is a bitter irony in turning to indigenous peoples to solve problems of affluent urbanites. In the midst of the wealth of first-world nations, most native peoples endure appalling health problems, underemployment, and grinding poverty. A philosophy of reverence for the earth rings hollow in the reality of toxic waste dumps and nuclear testing on native lands. As Ines Talamantez, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, says: “If the impulse is for respect and sharing, then come stand with us in our struggles for religious freedoms and the return of skeletal remains and against hydroelectric dams and logging roads.”
Bell, Diane. “Desperately seeking redemption.” Natural History Mar. 1997
ConFest: A thesis in defence of…whatever.
Graham St John has a Ph.D. thesis published on the ConFest website entitled Alternative Cultural Heterotopia: ConFest as Australia’s Marginal Centre. In his apologia for appropriation at ConFest, he writes for his chapter on ‘Indigeneity and Appropriation’ about the goings on in the “marginal centre”:
A white male Toc III participant posed a curious sight. With his body covered in mud, didjeridu painted in a black, yellow and red pattern, and penis decorated in matching hues, he emblematised the sensuous simulation of, and experimentation with, primitivity discovered on site. Here, participants manipulate a repertoire of symbolism (paint, musical instruments, clothing, dance styles, architecture) assuming aspects of the valorised primitive, seeking indigeneity.11 While workshops like ‘Koori astronomy’ and ‘intercultural sharing’ – involving the construction of multi-totemic murals – appeared at Toc III (in Koori Culture), body decorations using ochre (hence the experience of getting ‘ochred’) and dot painting technique have become ephemeral recently. And, like primitive antennae seen on backpackers commuting to and from ConFest, the popularity of the didjeridu has escalated. Non-indigenous Australians (usually males but increasingly females also) desire to create the vibrating drone to which Aborigines have always attributed sacred significance, a trend that is underscored by the popularity of workshops on ‘how to play didjeridu’ and ‘didge healing’,12 and stalls like ‘Heartland Didgeridoo’ which, at Toc III, was signposted:
It’s time for Aboriginal spirit to rise in us all …The didge is the sound of Mother Earth and is bringing forth the heart spirit, from the depths of our land. The Didge Spirit will guide us if we put aside our ego and be humble … The vibrating sound of the didge is stirring for it reflects the wonderful sound of creation. Even the earth rotating as taped from outer space sounds like a didgeridoo … By using it in creative ritual in day to day life and going into meditative, reflective and feeling spaces it becomes our soul companion helping open and clear the doorway to our spirit.
In sympathy with such logic, the didjeridu, a chief ritual tool used in a fire walk at Toc IV, was played over the bare feet of prospective coal walkers with the purpose of guiding their journey. Such discourse and practice is consistent with essentialising patterns like those located in contemporary world music where the instrument is often perceived to resonate Mother Earth (Neuenfeldt 1994), and whose originators are imagined to be so ‘in-touch’ with their natural environment that they themselves are Nature. However, as a conduit between the sacred and profane (1994:93), the didjeridu’s specified use in nascent performances (‘didge healing’ and the Toc IV fire walk) delivers us upon fresher ground.
For the disenchanted of Euro-origin, the world’s aboriginal peoples have become the embodiment of the sacred. Indigenes are mobilised to serve varying purposes in different orbits. They are ‘fetishised’ at the global level (Beckett 1994); discursive mediators for the national imaginary (Lattas 1990; Hamilton 1990); and models for developing ‘indigenous selves’ (Mulcock 1997a).
[C.I. bold emphasis]
ConFest attendees wish to embody Aboriginal peoples, they wish to be a part of something that they perceive to be “primitive”, “primordial” and “down to earth”. They want to be “innocent”. They want body decorations, dot painting and “did healing” and fire walking. They want mud and meditation, “mother earth” and a “didj spirit”, ritual and resonance.
What they don’t want is beyond measure.
Go on, crank this one:
Andrea Smith on New Age movements and Survival
Some sanity from Andrea James:
These practices also promote the subordination of Indian women to white women. Many white “feminists” tell us how greedy we are when we don’t share our spirituality, and that we have to tell them everything they want to know because prophesies say we must. Apparently, it is our burden to service white women’s needs rather than to spend time organizing within our own communities.
The New Age movement completely trivializes the oppression that we, as Indian women face: that Indian women are forcibly sterilized and are tested with unsafe drugs such as Depo-Provera; that we have a life expectancy of forty seven years; that we generally live below poverty level and face a seventy-five percent unemployment rate. No, ignoring our realities, the New Age movement sees Indian women as cool and spiritual and therefore, available to teach white women to be cool and spiritual.
This trivialization of our oppression is compounded by the fact that, nowadays, anyone can be Indian if she wants to be. All that is required is that a white woman be Indian in a former life or that she take part in a sweat lodge or be mentored by a “medicine woman” or read a “how to” book.
Since, according to this theory, anyone can now be “Indian,” the term “Indian” no longer refers only to those groups of people who have survived five hundred years of colonization and genocide. This phenomenon furthers the goal of white supremists to abrogate treaty rights and to take away what little we have left by promoting the idea that some Indians need to have their land base protected, but even more Indians [those that are really white] have plenty of land. According to this logic, “Indians” as a whole do not need treaty rights. When everyone becomes “Indian” it is easy to lose sight of the specificity of oppression faced by those who are Indian in this life. It is no wonder we have such a difficult time getting non-Indians to support our struggles when the New Age movement has completely disguised our oppression.
A. Smith, ‘For All Those Who Were Indian in a former life’, in C. J. Adams (ed.), Ecofeminism and the sacred, New York, 1993
How Political is the Personal?:
Identity Politics, Feminism and Social Change
Joan D. Mandle
Associate Professor of Sociology
Colgate University
Second Wave Feminism
One of the best known and most important political slogans of the early Women's Liberation Movement in which I was involved in the middle 1960s claimed that "the personal is political." That phrase was honed in reaction to struggles within the 1960s social movements out of which the Women's Liberation Movement first emerged. It captured the insight that many of what were thought to be personal problems possessed social and political causes, were widely shared among women , and could only be resolved by social and political change.
In the l960s social movements - the Civil Rights Movement, the movement against the War in Vietnam, and the student movement which called for more student rights and decision-making power on college campuses - women were central actors. Within all these movements, however, women activists were denied the recognition and the responsibility that they deserved and that they had earned. Despite their commitment and contributions, they were all too often refused leadership positions, treated as second class citizens, told to make coffee, and put on display as sex objects. By the middle 1960s many of these women began to react to and organize around the strong contradiction within social movements which fought for self-determination and equality and yet which denied these same basic rights within their own ranks. First in the civil rights movement, with a statement written by Mary King and Casey Hayden, and soon afterward and more frequently in the anti-war movement, SDS, and other social movements, women radicals began to demand equity and respect as activists.
The reaction of many of their male and female comrades seems predictable in retrospect, but was shocking and demoralizing at the time. Women's claims were met with derision, ridicule, and the political argument that they were worrying about "personal" issues and in this way draining movement effectiveness in fighting the "political" injustices of racism and imperialism. How could women be so selfish, it was asked, to focus on their personal disgruntlement when black people were denied voting privileges in Mississippi, peasants were being napalmed in Vietnam, and students were treated as numbers in large faceless bureaucratic universities?
Movement women had no shortage of responses to these objections, but the one that became a mantra of the new women's movement emerging out of these struggles was the claim that personal lives - relationships with friends, lovers, political comrades - were not personal at all but characterized by power and fraught with political meaning. Women argued that assumptions that they were followers and men leaders, that women naturally were "better" with children and men "better" at organizing, that women should type and men should discuss issues - that all these assumptions were deeply political, denying women not only equality within progressive movements, but even more basically the freedom to choose for themselves what they could and should think and do. When most men and some of the women involved within the 60s movements refused to listen, many women left the movement to, as they put it at the time, "organize around our own oppression." They began a liberation movement dedicated to eliminating the ways in which women were constrained and harmed by sexist assumptions and behavior.
By and large the early women's movement, emerging from a political critique of what was defined as "personal" both in progressive movements and in the wider society, pressed for the removal of the social barriers and obstacles that had constrained women's choices. This was true with respect to a wide range of issues including reproductive choice, educational and occupational options, legal rights, as well as sexual orientation and personal relationships. The movement was intent on achieving social justice which it defined as providing women and men with similar opportunities to grow, develop, express, and exercise their potential as people. The political analysis underlying this vision of personal fulfillment asserted that elimination of the sexism which pervaded political and social institutional arrangements and attitudes was the best way of ensuring that every one, regardless of sex, would have the ability to exercise personal freedom.
Successes were many during those early years. The decades of the 60s and 70s were in fact characterized by enormous change in the range of behavior and choices open to women in our society. Consciousness was raised, and attitudes of both men and women underwent significant change concerning women's capabilities and rights, while the notion of equality between the sexes gained increased legitimacy. Change was especially rapid in the law during those years. Indeed, Jane Mansbridge notes that had the ERA been passed in l982, its effect would have been largely symbolic because almost all sex-differentiated (sexist) laws which such an amendment would have changed had already been altered by that time.
The social and political changes effected by the early women's movement thus were in the service of a sex-neutral model of society. In this, each individual would be afforded an equal opportunity to shape her or his own life regardless of sex. The notion of gender difference was deemphasized by a movement focused on equality, as women sought to gain the right to fully participate in all aspects of society. Differences between women and men, which had consistently been a central ideological and behavioral component of limiting women to a separate stereotyped "feminine" sphere, came under attack. The personal fact of one's sex became an arena of political struggle, as increasing numbers of feminists challenged the prevailing ideology that sex and gender were legitimate constraints on the right to self-determination. Political justice demanded that gender make no difference. Expectations were high that women would achieve the freedom they had been denied and that sexism would be defeated.
But in the 1980s much of this changed. The country as a whole became more conservative in all areas of political life, as the Right, with Ronald Reagan as its standard bearer, launched what Susan Faludi has referred to as a "Blacklash" against the progressive changes of the previous decades. As the gains of the women's movement began to slow, many feminists became discouraged with the continuation of sexist attitudes and behavior. The gap between incomes for women and men narrowed but remained stubbornly persistent, abortion rights came under renewed attack, and awareness of and concern about the extent of harassment and violence against women increased. This latter ironically reflected the Women's Movement's earlier success, for due to its efforts behavior previously regarded as legally unproblematic, such as sexual harassment at work or marital and date rape, was criminalized, and increased reporting of violence occurred. In addition, growing numbers of women found themselves doing what Arlie Hochschild has called the "Second Shift" - working at full time jobs during the day and a second job at home as they continued to assume most or all of the burden of home and child care in their families. Finally, even though the 1970s were the heyday of the Movement, increasing numbers of young girls at that time were being raised in poverty because their single mothers' former husbands or lovers contributed nothing to support them, were becoming painfully aware of the dangers of abuse, rape, and sexual harassment, and were discouraged by their mothers struggles with the double burden of work and family care. As these girls matured into young women in the 1980s, many were far from convinced that the women's movement had liberated anybody. All of these problems affecting women seemed to fly in the face of feminism's promises and expectations of equality, and some women, discouraged with the pace of change and the persistence of sexism, reacted by retreating from claims for equality and from demands for social change.
But as the 1980s progressed, it was not only feminists who were experiencing disillusionment and increasing pessimism. In an era when the conservative politics of Reaganism were dominant, the tragedy was that no compelling alternative progressive world-view was being constructed. A vision of a society of fairness and justice was not offered to counter the conservative hegemony, and the attainment of an egalitarian society seemed less and less possible.
Identity Politics
Out of this situation there emerged what has been called identity politics, a politics that stresses strong collective group identities as the basis of political analysis and action. As political engagement with the society as a whole was increasingly perceived to have produced insufficient progress or solutions, and in the absence of a compelling model of a society worth struggling for, many progressives retreated into a focus on their own "self" and into specific cultural and ideological identity groups which made rights, status, and privilege claims on the basis of a victimized identity. These groups included ethnic minorities such as African-Americans, Asian- Americans, Native Americans, religious groups, lesbian women and gay men, deaf and other disabled people. The desire to gain sympathy on the basis of a tarnished identity was sometimes taken to absurd lengths, as for example when privileged white men pronounced themselves victims based on their alleged oppression by women and especially by feminists. Indeed in the last decade there has been an explosion of groups vying with one another for social recognition of their oppression and respect for it. This has been especially exaggerated on college campuses where young people have divided into any number of separate identity groups.
Identity politics is centered on the idea that activism involves groups' turning inward and stressing separatism, strong collective identities, and political goals focused on psychological and personal self-esteem. Jeffrey Escofier, writing about the gay movement, defines identity politics in the following fashion:
"The politics of identity is a kind of cultural politics. It relies on the development of a culture that is able to create new and affirmative conceptions of the self, to articulate collective identities, and to forge a sense of group loyalty. Identity politics - very much like nationalism - requires the development of rigid definitions of the boundaries between those who have particular collective identities and those who do not."
Many progressive activists today have come to base their political analysis on collectively and often ideologically constructed identities which are seen as immutable and all-encompassing. These identities, for many, provide a retreat where they can feel "comfortable" and "safe" from the assaults and insults of the rest of the society. Today it is the case that many of those who profess a radical critique of society nonetheless do not feel able, as activists in the 60s and 70s did, to engage people outside their own self-defined group - either to press for improvement in their disadvantaged status or to join in coalition. Identity politics defines groups as so different from one another, with the gap dividing them so wide and unbridgeable, that interaction is purposeless. Not only is it assumed that working together will inevitably fail to bring progressive change that would benefit any particular group. In addition, identity groups discourage political contact because of their concern that the psychological injury and personal discomfort they believe such contact inevitably entails will harm individuals' self-esteem and erode their identity.
Identity politics thus is zero-sum: what helps one group is thought inevitably to harm another; what benefits them must hurt me. It is a politics of despair. In the name of advancing the interests of one's own group, it rejects attempts to educate, pressure, or change the society as a whole, thus accepting the status quo and revealing its essentially conservative nature. Identity politics advocates a retreat into the protection of the self based on the celebration of group identity. It is a politics of defeat and demoralization, of pessimism and selfishness. By seizing as much as possible for one's self and group, it exposes its complete disregard for the whole from which it has separated - for the rest of the society. Identity politics thus rejects the search for a just and comprehensive solution to social problems.
Feminism and Identity Politics
Like other progressive social movements, feminism has been deeply affected by the growth of identity politics. Within feminism, identity politics has taken two often-related forms which, together, I believe to be hegemonic today. One is generally referred to as difference or essentialist feminism, and the other as victim feminism. Difference feminism emphasizes the unique identity of women as a group, stressing and usually celebrating essential female characteristics which it believes make women different from - indeed even opposite to - men. Victim feminism also assumes that women have a unique identity, but the focus of that identity is women's victimization on the basis of sex, typically at the hands of men.
In defining difference feminism, Wendy Kaminer has stated that, by suggesting that women differ from men in a myriad of ways, it identifies "feminism with femininity." In what is perhaps the most influential version of this ideology, popularized in the work of Carol Gilligan, difference feminism emphasizes that women share "a different voice, different moral sensibilities - an ethic of care." According to Kaminer, this notion of female difference is attractive to feminists and non-feminists alike for a number of reasons. Difference feminism appeals to some feminists, she asserts, because it revalues previously devalued characteristics such as emotionality and social connectedness which women are thought to embody. In declaring female traits superior to those such as aggression and rationality which characterize men, difference feminism seems to reject sexism by turning it on its head. It thus provides a clear group identity for women which stresses the way they are special.
According to Kaminer, difference feminism is also attractive to feminists in another manner. She argues that it allows feminists to be angry at men and challenge their hegemony without worrying that they are giving up their femininity. Because they are socialized to fear the loss of femininity, the advocacy of radical change in gender roles is deeply threatening to many women, including feminists. Difference feminism's reassertion of the value of femininity helps to assuage these fears and thus seems to make feminism more acceptable. Finally, even some non-feminists are drawn to difference feminism because it legitimates a belief in immutable and natural sex differences, a central tenet of conservative claims for support of the status quo. As noted above, this conservative bias is a pivotal element of difference feminism.
What Naomi Wolf has called victim feminism also reinforces identity politics, for victim feminism also assumes women's diametrical difference from men as a central component of its view. According to victim feminism, however, what is unique about women's difference is that they are powerless to affect the victim status by which they are primarily defined. Wolf argues that victim feminism "turns suffering and persecution into a kind of glamour." The attractiveness of this model is partially due to the fact that feminists understand all too well the discouraging reality that women have been and continue to be victims of sexism, male violence, and discrimination. But victim feminism is attractive to others primarily because it absolves individuals of the political responsibility to act to change their own condition. Its emphasis on personal victimization includes a refusal to hold women in any way responsible for their problems. It thus implies that, as a group, women are helpless in the face of the overwhelming factors which force them to accept - however unhappily - the circumstances in which they find themselves.
Such a view of women resonates with many non-feminists as well because it pictures women as passive and in need of protection, a view consistent with traditionally sexist ideas of women and femininity. And finally, victim feminism is popular because it is consistent with the explosion of self-help programs and talk shows where individuals - disproportionately women - compete for public recognition of their claims to personally victimized status. These shows try - all too successfully - to convince their audiences and even perhaps their guests that exposing personal problems on television is itself a solution to them, in this way delegitimating the serious political changes which many such problems require for their elimination.
The hegemony of identity politics within feminism, in my view, has helped to stymie the growth of a large scale feminist movement which could effectively challenge sexism and create the possibility of justice and fairness in our society. On the one hand identity politics makes the coalitions needed to build a mass movement for social change extremely difficult. With its emphasis on internal group solidarity and personal self-esteem, identity politics divides potential allies from one another. Difference feminism makes the task for example of including men in the struggle against sexism almost impossible, and even trying to change men's behavior or attitudes is made to seem futile because of the assumption that the sexes share so little. Indeed some difference feminists assert that women and men are so different from one another that they can hardly communicate across sex at all. The phrase "Men don't get it" too often implies that they "can't" get it, because, it is argued by difference feminists, only women have the capacity to really understand what other women are talking about. This of course is nonsense without any empirical validity, but identity politics so strongly stresses sex differences that this has come to be the accepted wisdom.
But it is not just coalitions across sex that are assumed to be impossible, but coalitions among women as well. One of the problems with identity politics is that its assumptions can lead to an almost infinite number of smaller and smaller female identity groups. Identity politics puts a premium on valuing and exaggerating differences existing among women as well as those that are cross-sex. This makes large and potentially powerful feminist organizations difficult to sustain. One example of this effect was the problem of fractionalization within the National Women Studies Association (NWSA) some years ago, largely due to the many splits that occurred within its ranks. Identity groups organized within the organization pitting academic women against non-academic, Jewish women against non-Jews, women of color against white women, lesbians against straight women, lesbians of color against white lesbians, mothers against non-mothers and more. Each group focused on its own identity, its own victimization which it set up in competition with others' claims of victim status, and ins response to which it demanded recognition and concessions from the organization. The center - if it existed - simply could not hold and the organization, which had played a very important role in creating and supporting women's studies programs on campuses, was wracked by years of conflict from which it has only recently recovered.
Thus, by stressing the characteristics which divide us, the logic of identity politics is that ultimately each individual is her own group. If each individual is different from all others, then to protect herself adequately she needs to be selfish - to ally with no one and to count only on herself to protect her interests. It is obvious that this stance makes it completely impossible to bring together the large numbers of people necessary successfully to press for social change. Coalitions fail to develop or are not even attempted. In this way, identity politics within feminism, as elsewhere, is basically conservative, working against progressive change and supporting the status quo.
“Women on the Market”
Luce Irigaray
Chapter Eight, This Sex Which Is Not One [PDF], 1985.
This text was originally published as “Le marche des femmes,” in Sessualita
e politica, (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1978).
The society we know, our own culture, is based upon the exchange of women. Without the exchange of women, we are told, we would fall back into the anarchy (?) of the natural world, the randomness (?) of the animal kingdom. The passage into the social order, into the symbolic order, into order as such, is assured by the fact that men, or groups of men, circulate women among themselves, according to a rule known as the incest taboo.
Whatever familial form this prohibition may take in a given state of society, its signification has a much broader impact. It assures the foundation of the economic, social, and cultural order that has been ours for centuries.
Why exchange women? Because they are “scarce [commodities] . . . essential to the life of the group,” the anthropologist tells us.1 Why this characteristic of scarcity, given the biological equilibrium between male and female births? Because the “deep polygamous tendency, which exists among all men, always makes the number of available women seem insufficient. Let us add that even if there were as many women as men, these women would not be equally desirable … and that, by definition. . ., the most desirable women must form a minority. “2
Are men all equally desirable? Do women have no tendency toward polygamy? The good anthropologist does not raise such questions. A fortiori: why are men not objects of exchange among women? It is because women’s bodies-through their use, consumption, and circulation-provide for the condition making social life and culture possible, although they remain an unknown “infrastructure” of the elaboration of that social life and culture. The exploitation of the matter that has been sexualized female is so integral a part of our sociocultural horizon that there is no way to interpret it except within this horizon.
In still other words: all the systems of exchange that organize patriarchal societies and all the modalities of productive work that are recognized, valued, and rewarded in these societies are men’s business. The production of women, signs, and commodities is always referred back to men (when a man buys a girl, he “pays” the father or the brother, not the mother … ), and they always pass from one man to another, from one group of men to another. The work force is thus always assumed to be masculine, and “products” are objects to be used, objects of transaction among men alone.
The Problem of Race in the 1990s
On February 11, 1992, within a week of opening arguments in the case of the white police officers who beat african american Rodney King in los angeles, Frederick Goodwin, then director of the nation’s alcohol, Drug abuse, and Mental Health administration (aDaMHa) unveiled a new federal plan to combat violence in america’s ravaged inner cities: the Violence initiative. in an address to the national institute of Mental Health’s (niMH) national advisory Mental Health Council, Goodwin called violence a public health issue, requiring the combined efforts of governmental agencies and the research apparatus they support to combat it. in the course of his presentation to the council, Goodwin made the following impromptu remarks:
If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence. That is the natural way of it for males, to knock each other off and, in fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of that because the same hyperaggressive monkeys who kill each other are also hypersexual, so they copulate more and therefore they reproduce more to offset the fact that half of them are dying.
Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social structure in this society, and particularly within the high impact inner-city areas, has removed some of the civilizing evolutionary things that we have built up and that maybe it isn’t just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what might be more natural, without all the social controls that we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands of years in our evolution.
This just reminds us that although we look at individual factors and we look at biological differences and we look at genetic differences, the loss of structure in society is probably why we are dealing with this issue. (Goodwin 1992, cited in New York Times February 22, 1992)
In the wake of Goodwin’s unplanned oration and the wide press coverage it provoked, the Violence initiative soon commanded national attention.6 He himself did not expect that his connection between violent, hypersexual monkeys and poor urban youth would be received as a racist invocation of images that have within “the sciences of man,” as Donna Haraway has put it, constructed blacks as “the beast” or “‘primitives’ more closely connected to the apes than the white ‘race’” (1989, 153).7 Nevertheless, Goodwin apologized ten days later, characterizing his comments as “insensitive and careless” and insisting, “I have always said that in these studies it is crucial to focus on individual vulnerability and not on race” (quoted in New York Times, February 22, 1992).8
The ill-fated announcement of the Violence initiative marked a period in which the specter of the “dangerous individual” came to occupy a prominent place in public discussion. investigation of individuals’ “violent tendencies” necessitated increasingly detailed attention to the body and its operations. But while this attention can resemble the detailed scrutiny Foucault ascribed to the “disciplinary operation,” this particular investigation of the body differs in important ways from that of the disciplinary gaze: the attention directed at the violent body is aimed not at the “internalization” of an authoritative gaze by the individual him or herself, but rather, at the individualizing of a group against whom the population needs protection. Rather than a diffused gaze that “anyone” can employ, the authority of the regulatory gaze is consolidated for the state’s use.
If it seems clear that a government-funded initiative that targets a population of racially marked others who would be most “vulnerable” to violent behaviors in an effort to protect those who would be, in turn, “vulnerable” to these individuals, would provoke public controversy, it is because the specific expression of racism in the twentieth century (and evidently of the twenty-first, as well) differs from the old racism of the nineteenth century. in Abnormal, Foucault characterized this new racism as one “whose function is not so much the prejudice or defense of one group against another as the detection of all those within a group who may be the carriers of a danger to it. it is an internal racism that permits the screening of every individual within a given society” (Foucault 1999/2003, 316–17). Yet to understand the specific operation of this power, we must remember that detailed attention to the individual—the object of disciplinary power—is not the final target. The power that emerges at this time “uses” disciplinary mechanisms to get to what Foucault loosely termed the “background-body” (313), a body “behind the abnormal body” that is responsible for the appearance of the delinquent or abnormal “condition” (312). Foucault asked, “What is this background-body, this body behind the abnormal body? It is the parents’ body . . . the body of the family, the body of heredity” (313).
Monkeys, Mothers, and Monsters
At the same time, the headlines of the late 1980s and 1990s were featuring mounting evidence of crime and the decreasing age of its offenders (New York Times, September 8, november 19, 1995), another sort of “dangerous individual” was being featured right alongside. Poor, single mothers—notoriously inscribed in the figure of the “welfare queen”—became “omnipresent in discussions about ‘america’s’ present or future even when unnamed” (lubiano 1992, 332). While no explicit mention of such mothers was made in public discussions of the Violence initiative, their presence was nevertheless unmistakable. Goodwin’s comments concerning violent monkeys and jungles may have been written off as so much blunder, but his remarks made plain reference to an important body of ongoing niH research into the role of mothers in the making of the violent individual.
The research to which Goodwin referred is most closely associated with primatologist Stephen Suomi, best known for having identified a “dramatic biochemical difference” in the small percentage of male, adolescent monkeys who are violent for no discernible reason, who become what one science writer for the Washington Post described as “outcasts—repeat offenders for whom there is no place in rhesus society” (Washington Post, March 1, 1992). Suomi was particularly concerned with the role of “maternal nurturance” in the making of the violent individual. “What interests many of us,” Suomi said at the time, “is that serotonin levels of monkeys—and their personality differences—can be traced back to an animal’s early beginnings. . . . it makes a big difference what kind of mothers they had and what their genetic heritage was” (quoted in Washington Post, March 1, 1992).
According to a report in the Journal of NIH Research, Suomi demonstrated that infant monkeys who have been removed from their mothers and raised by what were characterized as “foster” mothers in groups with their peers, displayed a marked propensity to violence as juveniles, a finding Suomi understood as a result of “poor early attachment” (quoted in Touchette 1994) with which a low level of serotonin is associated (Higley and Suomi 1996). in addition, he found that animals with “low concentrations of [serotonin], like their human counterparts, tend to drink more alcohol,” a significant finding in the context of violence research, given that statistics show that “more than half of all violent crimes involve the use of alcohol” (quoted in Touchette 1994; see also Suomi 2002, 275).
The conclusions drawn from research concerning the importance of a primary “nurturing relationship” for a child could be used to justify a need for state-sponsored programs to facilitate the development of this crucial mother-infant bond. That the research did not lend itself to such recommendations may be owing to a second set of conclusions Suomi drew, namely, that an important genetic component also contributed to a child’s propensity to violent behavior: according to Suomi, having been separated from their mothers, male offspring of violent parents have a “tendency to get involved in fights . . . [and to] fight longer and harder than others even raised apart from their biological parent” (quoted in Mestel 1994). Yet, as he elaborates in a follow-up study, “allelic variation in the serotonin transporter gene . . . is associated with deficits . . . for peer-reared, but not mother-reared, [male] rhesus monkey adolescents and infants” (Suomi 2002, 275). This suggests that genetic factors may play a role, but only if environmental conditions (such as the absence of a mother) “activate” them—which one might imagine could speak, once again, to social policies that would support stable families.
-Jerry Fallwell"It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening."
Return to Data & Research Compilations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests