I have come home tonight with a sense of malaise which I need to work out in writing. Over time, I hear a variety of very hopeful, earnest and well-meaning people talk about "healing" in a variety of ways. Part of this is a feminist discourse, or one rooted in certain feminist traditions. These individuals claim to be concerned about the need to "heal each other", to "heal the earth or the environment", to bring healing into the world and into the political agenda. I have a number of difficulties with this whole perspective which need to be stated, and perhaps within a public forum.
Wikipedia defines physical healing as "the process by which the cells in the body regenerate and repair to reduce the size of a damaged or necrotic area". Other forms of healing are considered to be more "global" and involve stimulating or engendering regeneration or repair. In its strict physical sense, therefore, "healing" is simply a natural organic process, it is something our bodies do spontaneously. The notion of "healing" as an active verb which takes an object, that is "someone heals someone else" is therefore a secondary notion, and it is this notion I find disturbing.
First of all, the whole idea of "healing someone" is tied up with the so-called "medical model" - the idea that medicine is concerned with curing ailments or healing people. This model is increasingly being questioned - just how does one decide when a person's state of health needs intervention, and who does the deciding? I'm not suggesting these aren't valid decisions, if I have a health concern, I'll go to the doctor just like anyone else. I'm saying that it is appropriate to question how these decisions are made.
I work with people with disabilities. The strict application of the medical model considers people with disabilities to be an "anomaly", a failure of the medical system to produce a cure for all problems. But since almost everyone will develop some form of disability over the course of their life, does that make us all anomalies? Perhaps there is a problem of how we define normality? If so, then when should one intervene to "heal" someone? This issue is not a minor one, there are huge controversies around the introduction of hearing implants, which are seen as threatening the existence of the deaf community - a community which sees its "impairment" as a positive aspect of life, not a "disability". Other communities are increasingly facing similar questions. If one can determine that an embryo is deformed, should one interrupt the pregnancy (i.e. abort the child) and so deprive that child of life, because it will be disabled? The issues get messier and messier as time goes on.
The notion that one can "heal someone", even that one can "heal oneself" involves an objectification of the body. Since healing is a natural body process and doesn't require an object, to introduce an object is to step outside the system one is trying to affect. Therefore the idea of "healing the earth" is a form of arrogance, it suggests that one has the ability to act from "outside" the system. This is nonsense. Also, it is worth noting that the root definition does not suggest "removing damaged areas", but rather "reducing their size". There is no pretention of absolutism, rather all is a question of process. We do not need to "heal the earth", on the contrary, we need to recognize that we and the environment form a single coherent system, and we need to find ways to encourage regenerative function within the system of which we are a part.
This issue of recognizing the existence of damaged areas is also of huge importance. This is a problem I have with the idea of "wholeness" as human being. None of us are whole, nor can ever be whole, not in the sense of free from distress and pain and disability in whatever forms it takes. As humans, we are all imperfect, we carry pain within us whether we recognize it or not, we all have a built-in rebel, and we are all of necessity "incomplete" - we require the company of others to function well. There is this notion that has crept in to popular discourse that healing is about "making ourselves whole". This is bullshit, from end to end. Wholeness is impossible, it is not how humans are made. Healing as an act that someone performs on us is also impossible, it is a contradiction in terms. Healing the environment is nonsense. Recognizing our interdependencies, and finding ways to allow the self or the environment to "heal" through its own regnerative processes, that is something we can hope to achieve.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
On Morality and Ethics
Too many people seem to be convinced that morality is about answers, that there IS an unequivocal right and a wrong that can be declared with no uncertainty. This is disturbing, because if there is one thing the 20th century has taught us, it is that what is considered right varies from place to place, culture to culture, religion to religion and individual to individual.
The difficulty is most telling when it comes to the issue of "raising children". It is widely assumed that part of a parent’s role is to "teach" children how to tell "right" from "wrong". What this means is, teach them a set of values that provides a unique set of answers.
Within the framework of my broader argument, that we as a society are moving from a world defined by its orthodoxies into a world better characterized by paradox, I believe it is appropriate to resituate questions of morality and ethics into a pluralistic framework better understood in terms of questions than answers.
What is interesting in this regard is that children, quite naturally and spontaneously, develop quite early a whole range of questions about what is "right" and what is "wrong". Treating children as "blank slates" on which must be written a "moral code" is highly disturbing in this regard. In practice, this usually means overiding a child’s natural questions about morality with unequivocal moral rules. This will leave the child initially confused and later locked into a particular way of thinking which will, over the long term, be counter productive.
I am not arguing against the discussion of values and ethics, on the contrary, I am arguing for them, but not in the sense of a single set of values. Children, like adults, need to be exposed to different sets of values, and encouraged to work out their own answers. Morality is really about asking questions that are hard to answer. Developing one’s own sense of ethics may also require taking actions and changing these actions over time, experimenting with different moral positions. In fact, morality is ultimately more about actions than about philosophy. Sometimes a moral idea that sounds right can be quickly revealed as inappropriate for oneself when one tries to put it into action.
When morality is reframed as an active response to asking hard questions, then it is seen to be never a fixed idea or behavior, but rather one that constantly evolves and changes over time. This is as it should be. Morality is the result of putting together "who one is" with "how one acts", and each is as important as the other. This is an embodied morality rather than a transcendental or metaphysical morality, and one, I suggest, that is more suited to the 21st century.
The difficulty is most telling when it comes to the issue of "raising children". It is widely assumed that part of a parent’s role is to "teach" children how to tell "right" from "wrong". What this means is, teach them a set of values that provides a unique set of answers.
Within the framework of my broader argument, that we as a society are moving from a world defined by its orthodoxies into a world better characterized by paradox, I believe it is appropriate to resituate questions of morality and ethics into a pluralistic framework better understood in terms of questions than answers.
What is interesting in this regard is that children, quite naturally and spontaneously, develop quite early a whole range of questions about what is "right" and what is "wrong". Treating children as "blank slates" on which must be written a "moral code" is highly disturbing in this regard. In practice, this usually means overiding a child’s natural questions about morality with unequivocal moral rules. This will leave the child initially confused and later locked into a particular way of thinking which will, over the long term, be counter productive.
I am not arguing against the discussion of values and ethics, on the contrary, I am arguing for them, but not in the sense of a single set of values. Children, like adults, need to be exposed to different sets of values, and encouraged to work out their own answers. Morality is really about asking questions that are hard to answer. Developing one’s own sense of ethics may also require taking actions and changing these actions over time, experimenting with different moral positions. In fact, morality is ultimately more about actions than about philosophy. Sometimes a moral idea that sounds right can be quickly revealed as inappropriate for oneself when one tries to put it into action.
When morality is reframed as an active response to asking hard questions, then it is seen to be never a fixed idea or behavior, but rather one that constantly evolves and changes over time. This is as it should be. Morality is the result of putting together "who one is" with "how one acts", and each is as important as the other. This is an embodied morality rather than a transcendental or metaphysical morality, and one, I suggest, that is more suited to the 21st century.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The problem with women
One of my most recent sources of alarm has been a sudden realization that modern literature has been, to put it in rather bold terms, almost completely emasculated. While browsing through several bookstores, especially within large chains such as Chapters, it has become evident that one can no longer find significant sections dealing with erotica for men, with relationships between men and their mothers or even between men. There is very little literature dealing with men’s anger or sadness, except as these relate to “women’s issues”. There are clearly marked sections for erotica, but these are almost all feminine erotica, unlike several years ago. The situation is only slightly better on francophone book stores. The only major section where serious treatment of men’s issues shows up, making this one of the more interesting subgenres in today’s book culture, is that of adolescent literature.
While contemplating this situation, I came across a recent compilation of material by Canadian academics dealing with precisely this subject, which they call “Misandry” in parallel to “Misogyny”. The first book in what is projected to be a three volume sequence, called “Spreading Misandry” (Subtitled "The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture", authors : Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young), documents the extent to which men are subject to a growing antipathy that has resulted in their systematic exclusion from certain sectors of society, using empirical data to support their arguments. The second volume of this series addresses the international scope of this growing problem.
Having grown up immersed in feminist literature and having spent much of my life as a professed “feminist”, albeit of the masculine variety, this realization has come as rather a shock. I have long believed that the feminist movement had as much to offer to men as it does to women. But over the past few years, although I still believe there is much in feminism that is relevant to men, I have become aware that there is a silent part to the unfolding of relationships between men and women that is actually avoided or shunned within feminist writings, in the eagerness many appear to have to “blame men, and male oppression” for every major ill of our society.
This reflection dovetails with another recent preoccupation I’ve developed, over the role of women in early childhood. Beside the Canadian writers mentioned above, the only other significant writer about men’s issues is Robert Bly, the American poet. Bly is careful to frame his issues as that of “absent fathers”, which is, of course, a real issue for children, or has been over the past several decades. However, there is a flip side to this discourse which is not stated by Bly, but implicit in his books, and which is central to men’s experience of the world – the problem of “invasive mothers”.
The whole issue of motherhood still suffers from an “angelic glow”, an inability of our society to effectively address this more or less taboo subject. Motherhood is assumed to be, essentially, a strength, with very little downside. If there is a downside, it is assumed that certain women are unable to be “good mothers” for reasons of character or circumstance, as if motherhood were inherently “good”. Indeed, motherhood is revered in our society, and throughout much of the world. It is accepted as perfectly normal that mothers should have privileged, even sole access to children under the age of about two or three – fathers are still largely excluded from playing a dominant role during this period of a child’s life. Today’s fathers are certainly more present than they were decades ago, but they rarely play the dominant role.
There is a whole constellation of issues that support this state of things. Romantic love, still widely present in our cultures, focuses on the adoration of women. All things female are considered sacred within this purview. Feminism also argues in favour of women’s control over early childhood. It is assumed by feminism that men are more or less inapt to take on any major responsibility over very young children. Either they are a source of danger, due to the widespread assumption that men are “incestuous” or that there is always a danger of that, or that they are not “multitasking enough”, that they are cognitively inapt to take on the roles effectively. I believe that men may also be afraid to assert themselves in this area – indeed, part of the emasculation of men with regard to their role in society may be rooted in fear. More on this later.
Violence is decried, and masculine violence in particular. In fact, to some extent, physical violence is almost equated with masculine violence – when it shows up in women it is assumed to be aberrant. When it shows up in men, it is assumed to be normal. According to this view, men are somehow biologically predisposed towards physical, and sexual, violence, while women are implicitly victims but not perpetrators of violence. Although it is often suggested that those who exhibit violence were themselves victims of violence, the debate around this issue also tends to leave men carrying the major part of the responsibility of engendering violence. Hence not all violent individuals exhibit evident history of family violence, while the majority of perpetrators of violence are men, leading once again to the idea that men are, somehow, inherently violent. And when women are violent, the idea that victims of violence become perpetrators of violence is used to cast the blame back on men, again.
Women in today’s world have a kind of “superiority complex” with regard to men. This is true even in cultures where men still have much of the hold on economic power. Women assume, among themselves, that they are obviously superior to men. Morally, cognitively, even biologically.
What is going on here? Can it be true? Are men inherently prone to violence, and not women? How are men inferior to women?
Either these statements are true, or there is a major source of cultural imbalance that is not recognized. It is my contention that there IS such a major source of imbalance, and that if we don’t correct, we will continue to construct a society built on inequality.
To understand this, let us return to the characteristics that determine masculinity and femininity. At their most simplest level, femininity is about extending boundaries, while masculinity is concerned with marking and maintaining borders. This is counterbalanced, in the paradox of being, by the receptive nature of femininity in contrast to the active nature of masculinity. The feminist movement has made much of this latter distinction, and much of the feminist movement has been concerned with regaining a more active perception of women, without having them give up their receptivity. On the other hand, feminists have focussed very little on the first pair of characteristics – if anything, they have invested a certain amount of energy extolling the virtues of the former over the latter.
Indeed, the argument that proposes that motherhood is inherently good is based, in part, of the assumed superiority of the idea of expanding one’s boundaries. It is widely recognized that one of the roles of parents for young children is to serve as an “external regulator” – that is, the child relies on the “parent” to regulate their experience of the world until such time that they can develop their own self-regulation. The ability to expand the boundaries of the self to include the child within the self is part of what makes such external regulation possible.
Furthermore, the feminist movement has decried the tendency of men to close in upon themselves, to hold their emotions in check, to be unable to seek outside help for their states of distress. This “inability” on the part of men has been seen to be a weakness, an example of how men need to become more “like women” to improve their effective ability to function. In addition, women have become increasingly present in the world of business, and have “feminized” to some extent how business is conducted. On the other hand, women in business have learned to be more “emotionally controlled”, not necessarily by shutting emotion out but rather by using it in more controlled ways. This is again promoted as a success on the part of women.. their ability to “out-business” their male business counterparts.
The focus, throughout these debates, is therefore always towards the “superior role” attributed to the expansion of boundaries, and the inferior role attributed to their control or reduction. The feminist movement, indeed, may be viewed as one that has expanded the boundaries of attainable behaviour on the part of women, rather than as a movement that has provided much in the form of control or regulation of women.
There is a counterargument, but its voice is not always heard. It has been recognized by psychologists that fathers play a critically important role in the raising of children. This is particularly evident when raising girls. Fathers help a girl find her own boundaries, especially as their presence in relation to the mother may be difficult to define. Obviously, fathers also serve as important role models for boys, and may also help keep overly involved mothers from overcoming the important personal space that children need. However, it is assumed that this boundary definition role only comes into effective play after the child reaches a certain age, when the child is struggling to define his or her own identity. Hence the exclusion of fathers from playing any dominant or co-dominant role in early childhood.
Furthermore, another insidious model supports the exclusion of men from early child raising. This is the idea that a child enters the world as a tabula rasa, a blank slate on which one may write what one pleases. In the classic nature versus nurture argument, this is the pure nurture point of view. Of course, it has now been demonstrated that a child enters the world with a certain predisposition, and certain abilities pre-programmed, but there is still a great deal of controversy surrounding the question of the extent to which such genetic predetermination may be present. Even language acquisition ability is still controversial. It is clear that children learn language at an astonishing rate, and that some genetic predisposition must exist, but the debate still rages over how much. The idea that children are born with a clear personality is still in the realm of mysticism as far as the scientific debate goes.
If a child is, indeed a blank slate, then the expansion of the care-giver's boundaries to include the child, irregardless of the child’s own need to maintain a distinct personality, is risk-free. If, however, the child has a distinct sense of self before birth, then this early period of total dependency on the care-giver, usually the mother, is fraught with risk. The external regulation argument, presented earlier, assumes, indeed, that the child develops a personality sufficiently quickly to be able to exploit such a mechanism for its benefit early in the process. It seems likely, therefore, that enough personality has developed relatively early to form a distinct individual, perhaps even before birth.
This is therefore a source of worry, especially so in a society which does not even recognize that there may be a problem here, and values the expansion and softening of boundaries over their regulation and control. What we are talking about here, therefore, is a form of relatively extreme, yet completely silent and unacknowledged, violence. A kind of "identity violence", an a par with other forms of incest or, for that matter, rape. That is the danger – I am not suggesting it happens all the time, certainly not that it need happen. For it not to happen with anything like a high frequency, however, would need a widespread social recognition that a baby has “identity needs”, that when the baby is entirely dependent on the parents, the latter need to be very sensitive to the latter’s need for distinctiveness. It is all too easy to use the need to feed and console the other as grounds for incorporating the other within the self to the extent that no self in the other is given any space to exist – especially given our own left-over need for fusion based on our early encounter with our mothers.
Given the nature of human beings, and the obvious widespread presence of violence in its many forms, this early form of violence is unlikely to be rare. On the contrary, indications are that it is prevalent in most cultures today. In almost all cases, it will occur unremarked – and its effects will only show up years later, once the individual begins to interact with others outside the circle of the family. Although the responsibility for its occurrence is shared between the sexes, ultimately the source of the problem is the over-rating of the value of boundary expansion and extension over boundary control and regulation. When this value shift is achieved, the “superiority complex” among women is revealed to be bogus. Women will always be more effective than men at enlarging their boundaries, but in a society that values the regulation and control of boundaries as much as their extension and enlargement, women are no longer “naturally superior” to men – on the contrary, they must work together with men to make a society that is functional.
Furthermore, the source of extensive forms of violence is our society is now revealed to be equally distributed between men and women, albeit in different forms. As a society, we have called on men to take responsibility "in the now" for our violent behaviour, to interrupt the vicious circle that leads to its continued transferal from one generation to another. The same moral imperative exists for women. It is time to recognize that the much vaunted ability of women to support and sustain other people has its dark side, and one that is very dark if no attempt is made to even recognize that there is a problem with it.
While contemplating this situation, I came across a recent compilation of material by Canadian academics dealing with precisely this subject, which they call “Misandry” in parallel to “Misogyny”. The first book in what is projected to be a three volume sequence, called “Spreading Misandry” (Subtitled "The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture", authors : Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young), documents the extent to which men are subject to a growing antipathy that has resulted in their systematic exclusion from certain sectors of society, using empirical data to support their arguments. The second volume of this series addresses the international scope of this growing problem.
Having grown up immersed in feminist literature and having spent much of my life as a professed “feminist”, albeit of the masculine variety, this realization has come as rather a shock. I have long believed that the feminist movement had as much to offer to men as it does to women. But over the past few years, although I still believe there is much in feminism that is relevant to men, I have become aware that there is a silent part to the unfolding of relationships between men and women that is actually avoided or shunned within feminist writings, in the eagerness many appear to have to “blame men, and male oppression” for every major ill of our society.
This reflection dovetails with another recent preoccupation I’ve developed, over the role of women in early childhood. Beside the Canadian writers mentioned above, the only other significant writer about men’s issues is Robert Bly, the American poet. Bly is careful to frame his issues as that of “absent fathers”, which is, of course, a real issue for children, or has been over the past several decades. However, there is a flip side to this discourse which is not stated by Bly, but implicit in his books, and which is central to men’s experience of the world – the problem of “invasive mothers”.
The whole issue of motherhood still suffers from an “angelic glow”, an inability of our society to effectively address this more or less taboo subject. Motherhood is assumed to be, essentially, a strength, with very little downside. If there is a downside, it is assumed that certain women are unable to be “good mothers” for reasons of character or circumstance, as if motherhood were inherently “good”. Indeed, motherhood is revered in our society, and throughout much of the world. It is accepted as perfectly normal that mothers should have privileged, even sole access to children under the age of about two or three – fathers are still largely excluded from playing a dominant role during this period of a child’s life. Today’s fathers are certainly more present than they were decades ago, but they rarely play the dominant role.
There is a whole constellation of issues that support this state of things. Romantic love, still widely present in our cultures, focuses on the adoration of women. All things female are considered sacred within this purview. Feminism also argues in favour of women’s control over early childhood. It is assumed by feminism that men are more or less inapt to take on any major responsibility over very young children. Either they are a source of danger, due to the widespread assumption that men are “incestuous” or that there is always a danger of that, or that they are not “multitasking enough”, that they are cognitively inapt to take on the roles effectively. I believe that men may also be afraid to assert themselves in this area – indeed, part of the emasculation of men with regard to their role in society may be rooted in fear. More on this later.
Violence is decried, and masculine violence in particular. In fact, to some extent, physical violence is almost equated with masculine violence – when it shows up in women it is assumed to be aberrant. When it shows up in men, it is assumed to be normal. According to this view, men are somehow biologically predisposed towards physical, and sexual, violence, while women are implicitly victims but not perpetrators of violence. Although it is often suggested that those who exhibit violence were themselves victims of violence, the debate around this issue also tends to leave men carrying the major part of the responsibility of engendering violence. Hence not all violent individuals exhibit evident history of family violence, while the majority of perpetrators of violence are men, leading once again to the idea that men are, somehow, inherently violent. And when women are violent, the idea that victims of violence become perpetrators of violence is used to cast the blame back on men, again.
Women in today’s world have a kind of “superiority complex” with regard to men. This is true even in cultures where men still have much of the hold on economic power. Women assume, among themselves, that they are obviously superior to men. Morally, cognitively, even biologically.
What is going on here? Can it be true? Are men inherently prone to violence, and not women? How are men inferior to women?
Either these statements are true, or there is a major source of cultural imbalance that is not recognized. It is my contention that there IS such a major source of imbalance, and that if we don’t correct, we will continue to construct a society built on inequality.
To understand this, let us return to the characteristics that determine masculinity and femininity. At their most simplest level, femininity is about extending boundaries, while masculinity is concerned with marking and maintaining borders. This is counterbalanced, in the paradox of being, by the receptive nature of femininity in contrast to the active nature of masculinity. The feminist movement has made much of this latter distinction, and much of the feminist movement has been concerned with regaining a more active perception of women, without having them give up their receptivity. On the other hand, feminists have focussed very little on the first pair of characteristics – if anything, they have invested a certain amount of energy extolling the virtues of the former over the latter.
Indeed, the argument that proposes that motherhood is inherently good is based, in part, of the assumed superiority of the idea of expanding one’s boundaries. It is widely recognized that one of the roles of parents for young children is to serve as an “external regulator” – that is, the child relies on the “parent” to regulate their experience of the world until such time that they can develop their own self-regulation. The ability to expand the boundaries of the self to include the child within the self is part of what makes such external regulation possible.
Furthermore, the feminist movement has decried the tendency of men to close in upon themselves, to hold their emotions in check, to be unable to seek outside help for their states of distress. This “inability” on the part of men has been seen to be a weakness, an example of how men need to become more “like women” to improve their effective ability to function. In addition, women have become increasingly present in the world of business, and have “feminized” to some extent how business is conducted. On the other hand, women in business have learned to be more “emotionally controlled”, not necessarily by shutting emotion out but rather by using it in more controlled ways. This is again promoted as a success on the part of women.. their ability to “out-business” their male business counterparts.
The focus, throughout these debates, is therefore always towards the “superior role” attributed to the expansion of boundaries, and the inferior role attributed to their control or reduction. The feminist movement, indeed, may be viewed as one that has expanded the boundaries of attainable behaviour on the part of women, rather than as a movement that has provided much in the form of control or regulation of women.
There is a counterargument, but its voice is not always heard. It has been recognized by psychologists that fathers play a critically important role in the raising of children. This is particularly evident when raising girls. Fathers help a girl find her own boundaries, especially as their presence in relation to the mother may be difficult to define. Obviously, fathers also serve as important role models for boys, and may also help keep overly involved mothers from overcoming the important personal space that children need. However, it is assumed that this boundary definition role only comes into effective play after the child reaches a certain age, when the child is struggling to define his or her own identity. Hence the exclusion of fathers from playing any dominant or co-dominant role in early childhood.
Furthermore, another insidious model supports the exclusion of men from early child raising. This is the idea that a child enters the world as a tabula rasa, a blank slate on which one may write what one pleases. In the classic nature versus nurture argument, this is the pure nurture point of view. Of course, it has now been demonstrated that a child enters the world with a certain predisposition, and certain abilities pre-programmed, but there is still a great deal of controversy surrounding the question of the extent to which such genetic predetermination may be present. Even language acquisition ability is still controversial. It is clear that children learn language at an astonishing rate, and that some genetic predisposition must exist, but the debate still rages over how much. The idea that children are born with a clear personality is still in the realm of mysticism as far as the scientific debate goes.
If a child is, indeed a blank slate, then the expansion of the care-giver's boundaries to include the child, irregardless of the child’s own need to maintain a distinct personality, is risk-free. If, however, the child has a distinct sense of self before birth, then this early period of total dependency on the care-giver, usually the mother, is fraught with risk. The external regulation argument, presented earlier, assumes, indeed, that the child develops a personality sufficiently quickly to be able to exploit such a mechanism for its benefit early in the process. It seems likely, therefore, that enough personality has developed relatively early to form a distinct individual, perhaps even before birth.
This is therefore a source of worry, especially so in a society which does not even recognize that there may be a problem here, and values the expansion and softening of boundaries over their regulation and control. What we are talking about here, therefore, is a form of relatively extreme, yet completely silent and unacknowledged, violence. A kind of "identity violence", an a par with other forms of incest or, for that matter, rape. That is the danger – I am not suggesting it happens all the time, certainly not that it need happen. For it not to happen with anything like a high frequency, however, would need a widespread social recognition that a baby has “identity needs”, that when the baby is entirely dependent on the parents, the latter need to be very sensitive to the latter’s need for distinctiveness. It is all too easy to use the need to feed and console the other as grounds for incorporating the other within the self to the extent that no self in the other is given any space to exist – especially given our own left-over need for fusion based on our early encounter with our mothers.
Given the nature of human beings, and the obvious widespread presence of violence in its many forms, this early form of violence is unlikely to be rare. On the contrary, indications are that it is prevalent in most cultures today. In almost all cases, it will occur unremarked – and its effects will only show up years later, once the individual begins to interact with others outside the circle of the family. Although the responsibility for its occurrence is shared between the sexes, ultimately the source of the problem is the over-rating of the value of boundary expansion and extension over boundary control and regulation. When this value shift is achieved, the “superiority complex” among women is revealed to be bogus. Women will always be more effective than men at enlarging their boundaries, but in a society that values the regulation and control of boundaries as much as their extension and enlargement, women are no longer “naturally superior” to men – on the contrary, they must work together with men to make a society that is functional.
Furthermore, the source of extensive forms of violence is our society is now revealed to be equally distributed between men and women, albeit in different forms. As a society, we have called on men to take responsibility "in the now" for our violent behaviour, to interrupt the vicious circle that leads to its continued transferal from one generation to another. The same moral imperative exists for women. It is time to recognize that the much vaunted ability of women to support and sustain other people has its dark side, and one that is very dark if no attempt is made to even recognize that there is a problem with it.
Friday, June 8, 2007
On Corruption
Here's a topic of some interest. I was listening to the film "All the King's Men", a superb film with Sean Penn and a host of good actors about the rise to power and the relationship to corruption that accompanies it, based on the book by Robert Penn Warren. Corruption, as the main character points out, is part of the human condition ... we all, all of us, have a shadow.
The problem is that we function within a society and within communities that refuse to acknowledge this fact. We not only aspire to the ideal of the "good soul", we actually believe it, some of the time, that a person can be "good" and have no shadow. This may be a residual of the Christian mentality, that divides the world into the divine, and evil incarnate, and suggests that people can be fully one or the other. We require of our politicians that they present an image of "goodness" to the public, with no taint of "corruption", and when they fail to do so, as they often do, we "reduce them in rank", or make them "walk the plank".
Societies that have corruption built into officialdom are not the answer, of course. This simply flips the image but leaves it unchanged. Stipulating that all official transactions be corrupt is no better than stipulating that politicians and statesmen are not allowed to have a dark side.
We remember Clinton for his shadow as much as his strengths, and this is viewed as humiliating for him, and a sad fact for everyone else. What if it were something else? What if it were the beginnings of an acknowledgement that even the best of us, those with the most responsability in their hands, of necessity have a dark side. The dark side, by its very nature, is rebellious... it is the part of us that rebels against the rules and the status quo. It is the reason so many people get into trouble over it. Part of who we are does not want to leave the shadow in hiding.
We also confuse the presence of corruption in all forms with a lack of integrity. This is subtle. Corruption is what happens when we are not allowed to acknowledge or accept our own shadow, individually and socially. It seeps out around the edges, under the table, between our legs (literally). It bites us in the backside. As individuals, we may find ourselves in situations where lying, stealing, covering up, and so on become necessary to keep the shadow out of the limelight. This leads us into situations where our integrity becomes compromised, in order to maintain that public image of "cleanliness and godliness".
There is a notion in both Christian traditions, but also in Buddhist, that "right thinking" will keep one out of trouble. But it is more complex than that. "Right thinking" does not mean excluding the shadow, but including it... otherwise, it cannot be effective.
It is perhaps time that we acknowledge the integrity of the self, not by denying the presence of the shadow, and not by sensationalizing it, as does much of modern entertainment, but by accepting and recognizing it explicitly. It is our shadow that provides us with passion and drive and energy to fully engage in the world. To imagine that we can accept these qualities but deny their source within us is not only illusory, it is unhealthy. This is part of moving away from an world of orthodoxy towards a world where paradox is accepted. The more ways we find to acknowledge the shadow in our lives and the lives of others, including, even especially those with responsibility, the less we shall encounter corruption, which is a consequence of denial.
The problem is that we function within a society and within communities that refuse to acknowledge this fact. We not only aspire to the ideal of the "good soul", we actually believe it, some of the time, that a person can be "good" and have no shadow. This may be a residual of the Christian mentality, that divides the world into the divine, and evil incarnate, and suggests that people can be fully one or the other. We require of our politicians that they present an image of "goodness" to the public, with no taint of "corruption", and when they fail to do so, as they often do, we "reduce them in rank", or make them "walk the plank".
Societies that have corruption built into officialdom are not the answer, of course. This simply flips the image but leaves it unchanged. Stipulating that all official transactions be corrupt is no better than stipulating that politicians and statesmen are not allowed to have a dark side.
We remember Clinton for his shadow as much as his strengths, and this is viewed as humiliating for him, and a sad fact for everyone else. What if it were something else? What if it were the beginnings of an acknowledgement that even the best of us, those with the most responsability in their hands, of necessity have a dark side. The dark side, by its very nature, is rebellious... it is the part of us that rebels against the rules and the status quo. It is the reason so many people get into trouble over it. Part of who we are does not want to leave the shadow in hiding.
We also confuse the presence of corruption in all forms with a lack of integrity. This is subtle. Corruption is what happens when we are not allowed to acknowledge or accept our own shadow, individually and socially. It seeps out around the edges, under the table, between our legs (literally). It bites us in the backside. As individuals, we may find ourselves in situations where lying, stealing, covering up, and so on become necessary to keep the shadow out of the limelight. This leads us into situations where our integrity becomes compromised, in order to maintain that public image of "cleanliness and godliness".
There is a notion in both Christian traditions, but also in Buddhist, that "right thinking" will keep one out of trouble. But it is more complex than that. "Right thinking" does not mean excluding the shadow, but including it... otherwise, it cannot be effective.
It is perhaps time that we acknowledge the integrity of the self, not by denying the presence of the shadow, and not by sensationalizing it, as does much of modern entertainment, but by accepting and recognizing it explicitly. It is our shadow that provides us with passion and drive and energy to fully engage in the world. To imagine that we can accept these qualities but deny their source within us is not only illusory, it is unhealthy. This is part of moving away from an world of orthodoxy towards a world where paradox is accepted. The more ways we find to acknowledge the shadow in our lives and the lives of others, including, even especially those with responsibility, the less we shall encounter corruption, which is a consequence of denial.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
A Crisis in Science, and A Call for Change
There is a crisis emerging in science, unfolding right at this moment. It is a crisis in funding, but also in organisation.
Essentially, the scientific infrastructure has been organized to the needs of disciplinary science, specialist science, especially that which leads to new technology, whether electronic, biological or other. This way of doing things has been hugely successful in generating technology, but it is under increasing pressure to do more, and the system is beginning to crack along the seams.
Within the social science arena, scholarship has been organized for decades towards a critical stance with regard to the popularity of technology-driven science, a kind of polarized response to the obsessive and overly narrow organisation of the physical and biological sciences.
As indicated in an earlier post, the system has evolved under pressure from within and without towards a much greater multidisciplinary focus. Mixing the disciplines serves innovation but not always technology, however, it most strongly serves a more ecological, whole systems perspective necessary for dealing with the environmental crisis and the changing population demographics.
Funding agencies and universities have adapted to the changing nature of scientific research in a variety of ways. Funding agencies have used the cross-disciplinary focus to increase the numbers of people funded, and have accommodated multidisciplinarity by introducing mixed peer-review committees, but the overall system remains fundamentally grounded in a peer review process. Peer review as-a-process is profoundly disciplinary in focus - it requires that people around the table discussing proposals know enough about the work being proposed to be able to make a reasonable judgement about its overall worth and relevance. This ability is increasingly diminished in the presence of multidisciplinary work - even when members of the disciplines relevant to the work are present, if they have not worked together in similar ways they will not necessary understand the worth of the work proposed. This is causing a breakdown in the system, even though the public discourse covers the problem up with disarming talk about multidisciplinary committees. The system is not working as it is supposed to. The more multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary one's focus, the less likely one will get a good hearing for what one is proposing.
Universities, likewise, have "bent" the system by creating new departments that are the result of amalgams of older groups of disciplines, but this process has likewise backfired - many of the new disciplines are even more defensive of their "disciplinary territory" as were the older disciplines from which they emerged. The universities are structured along disciplinary lines, and hence true multidisciplinary work lies in the cracks between disciplines. Multidisciplinary work, by its very nature, is paradoxical, and disciplines are orthodoxies. The two do not mix well.
In addition, the public is increasingly demanding that science, on-going, state-of-the-art, actual science, be couched in a language that the broader public can understand and follow. This is especially true in medical science, but a similar push is underway in other areas of research as well. As a general case, the scientific community has no idea how to react to this pressure, except to increase the number of press releases and attempt to make a few documentaries... neither an effective response to the growing demand.
The irony of this complex situation is that funds are drying up for truly innovative work on the margins of modern science, and there is a retrenchment towards a classic disciplinary focus in both universities and funding agencies, even for disciplines that never had a "classical stage"! In Canada, the system is in crisis. In other parts of the world, if the crisis isn't already declared, it soon will be.
In an earlier blog, I also discussed some of the difficulties with the current scientific review process in a multidisciplinary context. Current journal policy requires "adequate" citation of earlier work, but the measurement of "adequate citation" is no longer standard, as it once was within a narrower disciplinary context. Now it depends on who is doing the evaluation, and their reactions are beginning to look like a random field.
The organisation of science, science funding, and science dissemination is due for a major overhaul, past due. It will either stall, or suffer from a massive revolt from within the ranks. Many scientists who have made the jump to a multidisciplinary focus will not go back to a disciplinary one - even if the funding arrangements require this to occur. A new generation of researchers has been trained in a more multidisciplinary focus, it will be hard to put the genie back into the box!
Perhaps it is time that scientists swallow their pride and open their discourse to the public. Already some funding initiatives have been launched that allow the public to contribute money directly, via the web, to support relevant science funding. Perhaps committees might be set up via the internet to oversee publication - not only scientists, but members of the public, under joint arrangements... I am certain if a call went out, there would be people interested and willing to participate. Time also for the universities to modularise their knowledge more effectively. Rather than be organized in disciplinary units, perhaps they might be reorganised into "project units" - a radical idea, I know, for most academics. There are many other ways to "democratize" science, and they need to be discussed.
The crisis is not going to go away. It's going to become a lot deeper and darker than it already is.
Essentially, the scientific infrastructure has been organized to the needs of disciplinary science, specialist science, especially that which leads to new technology, whether electronic, biological or other. This way of doing things has been hugely successful in generating technology, but it is under increasing pressure to do more, and the system is beginning to crack along the seams.
Within the social science arena, scholarship has been organized for decades towards a critical stance with regard to the popularity of technology-driven science, a kind of polarized response to the obsessive and overly narrow organisation of the physical and biological sciences.
As indicated in an earlier post, the system has evolved under pressure from within and without towards a much greater multidisciplinary focus. Mixing the disciplines serves innovation but not always technology, however, it most strongly serves a more ecological, whole systems perspective necessary for dealing with the environmental crisis and the changing population demographics.
Funding agencies and universities have adapted to the changing nature of scientific research in a variety of ways. Funding agencies have used the cross-disciplinary focus to increase the numbers of people funded, and have accommodated multidisciplinarity by introducing mixed peer-review committees, but the overall system remains fundamentally grounded in a peer review process. Peer review as-a-process is profoundly disciplinary in focus - it requires that people around the table discussing proposals know enough about the work being proposed to be able to make a reasonable judgement about its overall worth and relevance. This ability is increasingly diminished in the presence of multidisciplinary work - even when members of the disciplines relevant to the work are present, if they have not worked together in similar ways they will not necessary understand the worth of the work proposed. This is causing a breakdown in the system, even though the public discourse covers the problem up with disarming talk about multidisciplinary committees. The system is not working as it is supposed to. The more multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary one's focus, the less likely one will get a good hearing for what one is proposing.
Universities, likewise, have "bent" the system by creating new departments that are the result of amalgams of older groups of disciplines, but this process has likewise backfired - many of the new disciplines are even more defensive of their "disciplinary territory" as were the older disciplines from which they emerged. The universities are structured along disciplinary lines, and hence true multidisciplinary work lies in the cracks between disciplines. Multidisciplinary work, by its very nature, is paradoxical, and disciplines are orthodoxies. The two do not mix well.
In addition, the public is increasingly demanding that science, on-going, state-of-the-art, actual science, be couched in a language that the broader public can understand and follow. This is especially true in medical science, but a similar push is underway in other areas of research as well. As a general case, the scientific community has no idea how to react to this pressure, except to increase the number of press releases and attempt to make a few documentaries... neither an effective response to the growing demand.
The irony of this complex situation is that funds are drying up for truly innovative work on the margins of modern science, and there is a retrenchment towards a classic disciplinary focus in both universities and funding agencies, even for disciplines that never had a "classical stage"! In Canada, the system is in crisis. In other parts of the world, if the crisis isn't already declared, it soon will be.
In an earlier blog, I also discussed some of the difficulties with the current scientific review process in a multidisciplinary context. Current journal policy requires "adequate" citation of earlier work, but the measurement of "adequate citation" is no longer standard, as it once was within a narrower disciplinary context. Now it depends on who is doing the evaluation, and their reactions are beginning to look like a random field.
The organisation of science, science funding, and science dissemination is due for a major overhaul, past due. It will either stall, or suffer from a massive revolt from within the ranks. Many scientists who have made the jump to a multidisciplinary focus will not go back to a disciplinary one - even if the funding arrangements require this to occur. A new generation of researchers has been trained in a more multidisciplinary focus, it will be hard to put the genie back into the box!
Perhaps it is time that scientists swallow their pride and open their discourse to the public. Already some funding initiatives have been launched that allow the public to contribute money directly, via the web, to support relevant science funding. Perhaps committees might be set up via the internet to oversee publication - not only scientists, but members of the public, under joint arrangements... I am certain if a call went out, there would be people interested and willing to participate. Time also for the universities to modularise their knowledge more effectively. Rather than be organized in disciplinary units, perhaps they might be reorganised into "project units" - a radical idea, I know, for most academics. There are many other ways to "democratize" science, and they need to be discussed.
The crisis is not going to go away. It's going to become a lot deeper and darker than it already is.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
The Practice of Blogging versus Scientific Review
In my musings, I have talked already extensively about how our sense of identity is shifting. We see ourselves increasingly as focussed in the now instead of defined by our history, we see ourselves as multiple and inconsistent and less as simple and uniform, and we organize ourselves and our lives less as centres and more as members of the periphery.
Blogging is, of course, one of the ways this shift manifests itself. As a blogger, I contribute to a movement of bloggers, what I have to say is no more or no less important that what anyone else has to say. I am not central, and certainly not centrally important. Rather I am important because what I say improves the value of the periphery, of the ever growing margins of our world.
In the scientific community, the sense of contributing to a collective effort has existed for some time, but it is mixed up with the idea that one must be defined by history. In the world of science, what I write about must be "built on the shoulders of giants", the ones who preceded me. When I submit a paper or an article, it is expected of me that I should cite (identify) all relevant thinkers and their works, all "centrally important" previous contributions, before I can be expected to talk about my own insights. It is a question of "not reinventing the wheel" and "acknowledging the work of my predecessors".
In the blog world, however, this would be impossible. With over 70 million blogs, still growing at an exponential rate, there is no possible way that I could identity and acknowledge all relevant material. Indeed, it is not expected of me. Instead, the blog world operates not by the acknowledgement of indiviudals, but by the acknowledgement of the collective. If a large enough number of people acknowledge the material I write, then it is considered "important". This is a form of acknowledgement based on periphery rather than centre. In the blog world, I cite material I have encountered that I believe is relevant, with no expectation that this is in any way complete.
While in the world of science, this is considered "wrong", in the world of multidisciplinary science, this is increasingly the level of possible practice. As long as one contributed to a limited disciplinary range, one could reasonably expect, with considerable effort, to read and know the relevant literature of earlier thinkers and to be able to cite them as appropriate. But the more one's contributions broaden in a multidisciplinary context, the less this is true. I have long felt as a scientist with a very broad multidisciplinary focus, that I can never master the references of each discipline in which I operate, I give up the effort from the get-go. I rely on colleagues to tell me what they might be, and I "suffer the slings and arrows" that scientists fling my way when I don't get the references right.
The blog way is the way of the future, the way of "collective thought" rather than the individual thoughts of an elite. There is no reason why science, science writing and scientific review cannot be organized in ways closer to the ways of blogging than to the current practice. Science will have to give up a certain number of assumptions and values, however, to do this. Such as that the scientist owns more "truth" than the broader population. Science needs to review its own needs for rigour and scholarship in relation to a different way of promoting "good thinking", "critical thinking", etc. Although the blog way allows a lot of strange stuff a "fleeting success", much sound thinking also rises to the top... and scientific review also allows a lot of stange stuff its heyday. They constitute dramatically different ways of organizing thought collectively, but both are effective. The blog way, however, is aligned with the emerging understanding of the self, whereas the scientific process is still rooted in an older vision of who we are. As such, it will have to change, like-it-or-not.
Blogging is, of course, one of the ways this shift manifests itself. As a blogger, I contribute to a movement of bloggers, what I have to say is no more or no less important that what anyone else has to say. I am not central, and certainly not centrally important. Rather I am important because what I say improves the value of the periphery, of the ever growing margins of our world.
In the scientific community, the sense of contributing to a collective effort has existed for some time, but it is mixed up with the idea that one must be defined by history. In the world of science, what I write about must be "built on the shoulders of giants", the ones who preceded me. When I submit a paper or an article, it is expected of me that I should cite (identify) all relevant thinkers and their works, all "centrally important" previous contributions, before I can be expected to talk about my own insights. It is a question of "not reinventing the wheel" and "acknowledging the work of my predecessors".
In the blog world, however, this would be impossible. With over 70 million blogs, still growing at an exponential rate, there is no possible way that I could identity and acknowledge all relevant material. Indeed, it is not expected of me. Instead, the blog world operates not by the acknowledgement of indiviudals, but by the acknowledgement of the collective. If a large enough number of people acknowledge the material I write, then it is considered "important". This is a form of acknowledgement based on periphery rather than centre. In the blog world, I cite material I have encountered that I believe is relevant, with no expectation that this is in any way complete.
While in the world of science, this is considered "wrong", in the world of multidisciplinary science, this is increasingly the level of possible practice. As long as one contributed to a limited disciplinary range, one could reasonably expect, with considerable effort, to read and know the relevant literature of earlier thinkers and to be able to cite them as appropriate. But the more one's contributions broaden in a multidisciplinary context, the less this is true. I have long felt as a scientist with a very broad multidisciplinary focus, that I can never master the references of each discipline in which I operate, I give up the effort from the get-go. I rely on colleagues to tell me what they might be, and I "suffer the slings and arrows" that scientists fling my way when I don't get the references right.
The blog way is the way of the future, the way of "collective thought" rather than the individual thoughts of an elite. There is no reason why science, science writing and scientific review cannot be organized in ways closer to the ways of blogging than to the current practice. Science will have to give up a certain number of assumptions and values, however, to do this. Such as that the scientist owns more "truth" than the broader population. Science needs to review its own needs for rigour and scholarship in relation to a different way of promoting "good thinking", "critical thinking", etc. Although the blog way allows a lot of strange stuff a "fleeting success", much sound thinking also rises to the top... and scientific review also allows a lot of stange stuff its heyday. They constitute dramatically different ways of organizing thought collectively, but both are effective. The blog way, however, is aligned with the emerging understanding of the self, whereas the scientific process is still rooted in an older vision of who we are. As such, it will have to change, like-it-or-not.
Thinking Back to My Emergence on the Job Market
While reading a blog posted by futuresubject about the kinds of questions one may have as a young person arriving onto the job market, I was reminded of my recent thoughts concerning my own career. I remember when I finished my Ph.D. I had very similar questions and concerns as futuresubject about my future ... how was I to distinguish myself in a productive and contributory manner to the world? As futuresubject suggests, I felt myself to be similar to hordes of other young people in a similar situation. Although judged by my professors as being someone bright with a lot of potential, there were no particular features that distinguished me from others.
I had done my doctoral studies in astrophysics, because, I suppose, I was interested in the "broader picture" of the world. At the time, "environmental studies" was a fledgeling discipline with no clear future, and, besides, it involved studying biology which was never my strength.
I went on to take a job in a field called "remote sensing", actually much closer than what we called "environmentalism" today than was astrophysics. This suited me, but, again, there was very little to distinguish me from many others.
However, in a relatively short period of time, my unique nature as a person emerged and impinged on my career. I brought to bear a wider scholarship and set of readings on my research than many researchers more senior than I were able to do, and from this developed a unique research programme, originally somewhat contraversial for my peers, that focussed on the relationship between the use of spatially or geographically oriented analysis tools and cognitively-informed perspectives. From there I developed into other lines of inquiry, bringing in the health sciences and the arts, and my social conscience brought me to head up important initiatives in the world of research.
This resulted, over twenty years of professional life, in a unique career path quite different from those of my colleagues and most other academics. But what was it about me in my early days that spoke to these developments?
I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the result was the result of "who I am", more than my "pedigree", my history up to that point. Certainly my training in astrophysics contributed to what emerged, however. Nonetheless, I've become the person I am because, to a certain extent, I couldn't become anybody else! If I could have told the young man I was, 25 years ago, not to worry so much about my destiny, that time would take care of itself, I would have. I've learned to accept who I am, weaknesses as well as strengths, and to worry less about the future.
I had done my doctoral studies in astrophysics, because, I suppose, I was interested in the "broader picture" of the world. At the time, "environmental studies" was a fledgeling discipline with no clear future, and, besides, it involved studying biology which was never my strength.
I went on to take a job in a field called "remote sensing", actually much closer than what we called "environmentalism" today than was astrophysics. This suited me, but, again, there was very little to distinguish me from many others.
However, in a relatively short period of time, my unique nature as a person emerged and impinged on my career. I brought to bear a wider scholarship and set of readings on my research than many researchers more senior than I were able to do, and from this developed a unique research programme, originally somewhat contraversial for my peers, that focussed on the relationship between the use of spatially or geographically oriented analysis tools and cognitively-informed perspectives. From there I developed into other lines of inquiry, bringing in the health sciences and the arts, and my social conscience brought me to head up important initiatives in the world of research.
This resulted, over twenty years of professional life, in a unique career path quite different from those of my colleagues and most other academics. But what was it about me in my early days that spoke to these developments?
I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the result was the result of "who I am", more than my "pedigree", my history up to that point. Certainly my training in astrophysics contributed to what emerged, however. Nonetheless, I've become the person I am because, to a certain extent, I couldn't become anybody else! If I could have told the young man I was, 25 years ago, not to worry so much about my destiny, that time would take care of itself, I would have. I've learned to accept who I am, weaknesses as well as strengths, and to worry less about the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)