Confession: I tune out whenever anyone mentions “women’s empowerment” as a solution to Third World problems. Before I tune out, I roll my eyes and sigh. And I am a feminist.
If you've had any involvement in human rights circles you will be familiar with the idea: empower women – give them an education or a microloan or whatever constitutes empowerment – and they will “fix” poverty. However, the belief that women are the key to human progress is not new, and it is not feminist. In fact, it has always been essential to the functioning modern patriarchy – that is, patriarchy in fortified imperialist/racist form. More than that, this belief is the most insidious element of patriarchal ideology, because it only superficially, and very disingenuously, values women.
Consider, for example, the American women's rights movement in the Reconstruction Era. White women were encouraged to stay home and raise children to fulfill their role as guardians of the White Race. The suffragists did not want to stay home and have tons of babies, but they happily accepted the fact that they would further the progress of their race. They insisted that voting rights for women was the only antidote to the impending peril of the Black Vote. White women, they argued, were educated and enlightened, and they outnumbered all of the uncivilized blacks and immigrants who would be tarnishing every election from here on out. White women could properly serve their function as guardians of the race only if they had the right to vote. Sadly, in constructing their argument on the basis of the Woman Savior, the suffragists merely strengthened the sexist and racist ideological framework that was instrumental in their oppression.
Of course, there is also a long history of using "women's liberation" as a pretext for imperial conquest. This may be even more pertinent to discussions about the developing world, particularly coming from the propaganda mills of powerful NGOs.
When a child has a crappy role in a school play, you make her feel better by telling her that, even though she doesn't have any lines, it is actually the most important, super special part in the play. Guardianship of the race (/humanity) works in pretty much the same way. Women have to clean up all the messes caused by capitalism, and they are told it is an honor. Whatever society as a whole used to provide, women now have the responsibility of taking care of as best they can on their own.
Valuing women does not mean forcing the entire burden of human progress onto their shoulders. It is not women’s job to fix poverty. As far as I can tell, men created the problem, so why should women have to solve it alone? I have heard, in the context of microloans, that men can’t be trusted because they waste money on alcohol and they don’t care as much about their families. Although I can’t prove that this is an exaggeration born out of Western ideas about masculinity, I can still ask: don't we want to raise the bar for men a little bit? Are the women supposed to do all the work of lifting their families out of poverty while the men drink themselves into oblivion?
But the larger issue is this: the responsibility for “fixing” poverty does not lie with any individual poor people, male or female. Poverty and inequality must be treated as a global systemic problem, one that involves a complex network of transnational social relations manipulated by a handful of people with incomprehensible amounts of wealth. It must be confronted en masse. A few individuals may be able to raise their standards of living with a good education or a loan, but poverty will continue to exist on the same scale until enough people, men and women, decide that they are not going to put up any longer with the capitalist system that creates it.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Friday, July 26, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Chivalry and Chauvinism
After an incident at my workplace, in which a male of high rank decided to act “chivalrous” toward a female colleague, I have initiated discussions with some of my friends about the historical and contemporary implications of chivalry. Unfortunately, the difficulty we face is the persistent belief (often shared among oppressor and oppressed) that stereotypes and gestures cannot be truly discriminatory if they are flattering. What’s wrong with saying that Asians are good at math? And isn’t it nice when a man holds a door for a woman?
The problem is, so long as any statement or gesture reinforces difference, and so long as difference always implies hierarchy (as it will until/unless the world is radically restructured), the act will bring to bear some applicable power relationship, some dynamic of domination. It works something like this. Say I am a woman waiting for a bus. I may be thinking about any number of things – what happened at work, what I plan to cook for dinner, how warm it is, and so on. As soon as a man steps aside to let me on the bus, I may still have a number of other things on my mind, but I am also now thinking, on some level, about the fact that I am a woman. And the man is also thinking, on some level, about the fact that he is a man.
That’s pretty harmless, though, right?
Well, for one thing, it adds up. As a woman, on the basis of these trivial actions, your gender is constantly being emphasized even when it’s not important or you don’t want to think about it (particularly in the workplace), and most importantly, you, as a woman, have no control over when this occurs. You realize that you never get to decide who goes in first or last, and this is yet another instance in which your ability to act is not equal to that of men. People argue that chivalry is just run-of-the-mill politeness. However, if chivalry were merely about being polite, it would not be the prerogative of men.
Furthermore, if chivalry were just about politeness, men would not feel insulted when women try to do the same for them. Although personal experiences here may vary, it is definitely true – and I have seen overwhelming evidence in support of this claim – that a good majority of men feel some degree of shame when women insist, “after you.” This shame comes from a perceived threat to their masculinity. They are, after all, supposed to be the “big, strong man.”
Finally, say what you will, chivalry does convey the message that women are weak and helpless. Historically, as these traditions emerged, the ideological justification for chivalry was expressed quite openly. And then it reinforced other existing forms of inequality. For example, women couldn’t even get into carriages by themselves, so they certainly couldn’t be entrusted with the privilege of voting. Some people argue that these historical facts aren’t applicable today. I counter that, first, it is important to remember that history is always relevant to the present. Attitudes and practices do not disappear nearly as easily as we think they do. Culture has a habit of reproducing itself. Second, I contend that ideas about feminine weakness DO persist, and are thus relevant today. That’s why we still have gender segregated sports. That’s why you hear countless women expressing their desire for a strong man who will protect them. That’s why men feel they need to open doors for women.
For any girl who has literally tried to compete on an equal playing field with boys, it is clear that boys do not tolerate girls who aren’t athletically inferior to them. Boys feel threatened when girls show them up. Boys insult each other by comparing their abilities to girls’. Because boys still learn that they are supposed to be physically superior to girls. Then those boys grow up and start pulling out chairs and opening up doors for women, just so they can remind themselves of that superiority.
The problem is, so long as any statement or gesture reinforces difference, and so long as difference always implies hierarchy (as it will until/unless the world is radically restructured), the act will bring to bear some applicable power relationship, some dynamic of domination. It works something like this. Say I am a woman waiting for a bus. I may be thinking about any number of things – what happened at work, what I plan to cook for dinner, how warm it is, and so on. As soon as a man steps aside to let me on the bus, I may still have a number of other things on my mind, but I am also now thinking, on some level, about the fact that I am a woman. And the man is also thinking, on some level, about the fact that he is a man.
That’s pretty harmless, though, right?
Well, for one thing, it adds up. As a woman, on the basis of these trivial actions, your gender is constantly being emphasized even when it’s not important or you don’t want to think about it (particularly in the workplace), and most importantly, you, as a woman, have no control over when this occurs. You realize that you never get to decide who goes in first or last, and this is yet another instance in which your ability to act is not equal to that of men. People argue that chivalry is just run-of-the-mill politeness. However, if chivalry were merely about being polite, it would not be the prerogative of men.
Furthermore, if chivalry were just about politeness, men would not feel insulted when women try to do the same for them. Although personal experiences here may vary, it is definitely true – and I have seen overwhelming evidence in support of this claim – that a good majority of men feel some degree of shame when women insist, “after you.” This shame comes from a perceived threat to their masculinity. They are, after all, supposed to be the “big, strong man.”
Finally, say what you will, chivalry does convey the message that women are weak and helpless. Historically, as these traditions emerged, the ideological justification for chivalry was expressed quite openly. And then it reinforced other existing forms of inequality. For example, women couldn’t even get into carriages by themselves, so they certainly couldn’t be entrusted with the privilege of voting. Some people argue that these historical facts aren’t applicable today. I counter that, first, it is important to remember that history is always relevant to the present. Attitudes and practices do not disappear nearly as easily as we think they do. Culture has a habit of reproducing itself. Second, I contend that ideas about feminine weakness DO persist, and are thus relevant today. That’s why we still have gender segregated sports. That’s why you hear countless women expressing their desire for a strong man who will protect them. That’s why men feel they need to open doors for women.
For any girl who has literally tried to compete on an equal playing field with boys, it is clear that boys do not tolerate girls who aren’t athletically inferior to them. Boys feel threatened when girls show them up. Boys insult each other by comparing their abilities to girls’. Because boys still learn that they are supposed to be physically superior to girls. Then those boys grow up and start pulling out chairs and opening up doors for women, just so they can remind themselves of that superiority.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
The Limits of Comedy
Every so often a comedian will say something really racist or sexist or homophobic or in some other way controversial (for some reason this usually tends to occur at the Laugh Factory) and it creates a huge media buzz. The resulting discussion is the same every time and reveals that there is a gaping chasm regarding what people consider to be acceptable territory for comedians. For those who are wondering, yes, this post was prompted by Tosh’s rape joke.
So, it always turns out that some people are totally offended, while others insist that nothing should be off limits. Personally (and from a partially amateurish social scientific point of view), I do think that the exploration of societal boundaries is a useful function that comedy can perform. Comedy provides a useful means of juxtaposing the expected/stereotypical/acceptable with the unexpected/transgressive/taboo, as well as demonstrating the fuzziness, instability, and arbitrariness of the boundaries and categories we construct. In short, comedy reveals all the intricacies of social life that normally exist below the level of conscious awareness.
But there are other types of comedy that do not perform this function. For example, certain forms of humor serve the purpose of making people feel better about themselves at the expense of others (it may be worthwhile to note, in that regard, that the middle school boys who taunted their bus monitor were inspired by their experiences watching Tosh.0 and their desire to get on the show). This type of comedy includes the brand of “stupid humor” that portrays fictional characters acting unrealistically idiotic, to satisfy people’s pleasure in feeling superior to someone less intelligent.
[I should add that not every portrayal of stupidity falls into this category. For example, the Dylan character on Modern Family is used partially to mock the stereotypical suburban teenage boy and to highlight the disparity between the parents’ expectations for their daughter and the reality of her choices; furthermore, an exchange such as –
Father: I mean, it's the tux I got married in so it's double breasted.
Dylan: Perfect. So am I.
– also serves as a clever linguistic quip.]
Then there is the brand of humor that is based on a desire to liberate oneself from any social norms and say everything that normally goes unspoken (the Saying Poop for the Sake of Saying Poop brand of humor). Some (but not all) of the practitioners of this form of humor argue that boundaries should not exist, and comedians must have free rein. Every time a controversy occurs, these people insist that anyone who is “too sensitive” should not go to comedy clubs, and that comedians can say whatever they want – because, after all, “it’s just comedy.”
Despite all my radical anarchist/antiestablishment tendencies, even I see the necessity of some social norms. Certain boundaries exist because they protect oppressed populations. In particular, certain limits on discourse are necessary to erode assumptions that specific types of people are inferior to others. For example, if it were not taboo to say (overtly) that black people are less intelligent, then there would certainly be more people who believe such nonsense actually expressing it openly, and these open affirmations of belief would reinforce one another, further entrenching racism in the collective conscious of society. To those who doubt the power of the Word, I would point out that the prevalence and circulation patterns of discourse always affect social reality, and that is why efforts at social control always begin with discourse (propaganda). I should also point out that I am NOT arguing that: 1) Social norms require legal enforcement; or 2) We can make problems go away simply by not talking about them. My claim is simply that discourse – any kind of discourse – has social consequences, and therefore, limitations on discourse may be useful in mitigating (though not necessarily eradicating) certain negative consequences for oppressed groups.
I believe that only the first form of humor that I described above is socially productive. I think the second lacks insight and can be personally damaging in many cases. And the third tends to be employed (by coincidence and not necessity) by comedians who are ultimately unable to think beyond commonplace assumptions. These comedians, in their quest to eradicate boundaries, are not attempting to challenge the social order or dominant ideologies, but merely fighting for their ability to express already hegemonic ideas (about race, gender, sexuality) in the crudest possible terms.
I also want to respond to the common argument that these controversies are the fault of people who are too easily offended. For example, in Louis C.K.’s odd and inconsistent reaction to the Tosh/rape controversy on the Daily Show, he made the “joke” that “feminists don’t have a sense of humor.” There are a couple of reasons why I don’t find this funny. Number one is that, from a purely comedic standpoint, lines get progressively less funny the more they are repeated and I have heard this one far too many times. But more importantly, this “joke” about feminists is generally used to undermine the legitimacy of their claims. It is a license to not take feminists seriously. It is also a power-trip. What angered me most was when Louis C.K. said, “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” It reminds me of being at work, when I compile reams of data and logical arguments to try to influence courses of action within my department.... and I’m told, in effect: “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” The fact is this: Louis C.K. is not only absolutely wrong, but is also perpetuating gender stereotypes, when he says that all women want is for someone to listen to them. No. What feminists (assuming, for the moment, that they are all the same) want is to be taken seriously, to have a seat at the table, to participate in social decision-making, to enact change. Who gives a crap about listening; what about an end to discrimination, stereotyping, and violence?
I think what I hate most about the “feminists don’t have a sense of humor” bit is the assumption that it is not possible to simultaneously care about things and have a sense of humor. Although I am quite a politically correct person, I have a sense of humor that constantly throws people for a loop. The faulty assumption is a case of boundary-phobes seeing things in black/white, and not recognizing the existence of people who both appreciate boundaries and like to explore them as well (in fact, it is impossible to explore something that is being destroyed). For example, to those who say my disapproval of Tosh’s joke indicates my lack of a sense of humor... would I automatically get upset about any joke that mentions rape in any context whatsoever? No! (For example.) But do I believe that there are inappropriate contexts and executions of rape jokes? Sure.
The fact of the matter is, I don’t see any reason why comedians should be granted complete immunity. Every social actor bears responsibility for the social implications of their work. The idea that the world of comedy operates by different rules is, to me, a cop out answer.
So, it always turns out that some people are totally offended, while others insist that nothing should be off limits. Personally (and from a partially amateurish social scientific point of view), I do think that the exploration of societal boundaries is a useful function that comedy can perform. Comedy provides a useful means of juxtaposing the expected/stereotypical/acceptable with the unexpected/transgressive/taboo, as well as demonstrating the fuzziness, instability, and arbitrariness of the boundaries and categories we construct. In short, comedy reveals all the intricacies of social life that normally exist below the level of conscious awareness.
But there are other types of comedy that do not perform this function. For example, certain forms of humor serve the purpose of making people feel better about themselves at the expense of others (it may be worthwhile to note, in that regard, that the middle school boys who taunted their bus monitor were inspired by their experiences watching Tosh.0 and their desire to get on the show). This type of comedy includes the brand of “stupid humor” that portrays fictional characters acting unrealistically idiotic, to satisfy people’s pleasure in feeling superior to someone less intelligent.
[I should add that not every portrayal of stupidity falls into this category. For example, the Dylan character on Modern Family is used partially to mock the stereotypical suburban teenage boy and to highlight the disparity between the parents’ expectations for their daughter and the reality of her choices; furthermore, an exchange such as –
Father: I mean, it's the tux I got married in so it's double breasted.
Dylan: Perfect. So am I.
– also serves as a clever linguistic quip.]
Then there is the brand of humor that is based on a desire to liberate oneself from any social norms and say everything that normally goes unspoken (the Saying Poop for the Sake of Saying Poop brand of humor). Some (but not all) of the practitioners of this form of humor argue that boundaries should not exist, and comedians must have free rein. Every time a controversy occurs, these people insist that anyone who is “too sensitive” should not go to comedy clubs, and that comedians can say whatever they want – because, after all, “it’s just comedy.”
Despite all my radical anarchist/antiestablishment tendencies, even I see the necessity of some social norms. Certain boundaries exist because they protect oppressed populations. In particular, certain limits on discourse are necessary to erode assumptions that specific types of people are inferior to others. For example, if it were not taboo to say (overtly) that black people are less intelligent, then there would certainly be more people who believe such nonsense actually expressing it openly, and these open affirmations of belief would reinforce one another, further entrenching racism in the collective conscious of society. To those who doubt the power of the Word, I would point out that the prevalence and circulation patterns of discourse always affect social reality, and that is why efforts at social control always begin with discourse (propaganda). I should also point out that I am NOT arguing that: 1) Social norms require legal enforcement; or 2) We can make problems go away simply by not talking about them. My claim is simply that discourse – any kind of discourse – has social consequences, and therefore, limitations on discourse may be useful in mitigating (though not necessarily eradicating) certain negative consequences for oppressed groups.
I believe that only the first form of humor that I described above is socially productive. I think the second lacks insight and can be personally damaging in many cases. And the third tends to be employed (by coincidence and not necessity) by comedians who are ultimately unable to think beyond commonplace assumptions. These comedians, in their quest to eradicate boundaries, are not attempting to challenge the social order or dominant ideologies, but merely fighting for their ability to express already hegemonic ideas (about race, gender, sexuality) in the crudest possible terms.
I also want to respond to the common argument that these controversies are the fault of people who are too easily offended. For example, in Louis C.K.’s odd and inconsistent reaction to the Tosh/rape controversy on the Daily Show, he made the “joke” that “feminists don’t have a sense of humor.” There are a couple of reasons why I don’t find this funny. Number one is that, from a purely comedic standpoint, lines get progressively less funny the more they are repeated and I have heard this one far too many times. But more importantly, this “joke” about feminists is generally used to undermine the legitimacy of their claims. It is a license to not take feminists seriously. It is also a power-trip. What angered me most was when Louis C.K. said, “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” It reminds me of being at work, when I compile reams of data and logical arguments to try to influence courses of action within my department.... and I’m told, in effect: “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” The fact is this: Louis C.K. is not only absolutely wrong, but is also perpetuating gender stereotypes, when he says that all women want is for someone to listen to them. No. What feminists (assuming, for the moment, that they are all the same) want is to be taken seriously, to have a seat at the table, to participate in social decision-making, to enact change. Who gives a crap about listening; what about an end to discrimination, stereotyping, and violence?
I think what I hate most about the “feminists don’t have a sense of humor” bit is the assumption that it is not possible to simultaneously care about things and have a sense of humor. Although I am quite a politically correct person, I have a sense of humor that constantly throws people for a loop. The faulty assumption is a case of boundary-phobes seeing things in black/white, and not recognizing the existence of people who both appreciate boundaries and like to explore them as well (in fact, it is impossible to explore something that is being destroyed). For example, to those who say my disapproval of Tosh’s joke indicates my lack of a sense of humor... would I automatically get upset about any joke that mentions rape in any context whatsoever? No! (For example.) But do I believe that there are inappropriate contexts and executions of rape jokes? Sure.
The fact of the matter is, I don’t see any reason why comedians should be granted complete immunity. Every social actor bears responsibility for the social implications of their work. The idea that the world of comedy operates by different rules is, to me, a cop out answer.
Monday, October 31, 2011
"Population" is a Code Word for "Eugenics"
Apparently the world's population has reached or will soon reach 7 billion people. Concern about the world's population and its growth has a long history, and it is very much intertwined with eugenics movements, to the extent that the two concerns cannot be considered as independent matters.
A CNN headline today read: "7 Billion Reasons to Empower Women." The article was about contraception. This was about as unsurprising to me as the sun rising, for the reason that contraception is also deeply interlinked with the eugenics/population control movement.
[For some interesting reading, you can consult:
Sex, Race & Science: Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward Larson
Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts
Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom by Wendy Kline
Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science & U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico by Laura Briggs]
Fears about unfettered population growth were deliberately created and exploited in an attempt to legitimize efforts at reproductive control. (There actually is no ironclad reason to believe that population growth is a threat.) And, as much as white feminists might protest, curbing reproduction has had far less to do with "empowering women" than it has with reducing the number of people of color on this planet.
Margaret Sanger, the feminist icon who most famously championed birth control as a means of "empowering women," was also an avowed eugenicist who supported the involuntary imposition of birth control on women of color.
In fact, women of color in the U.S. and abroad have been subject to all sorts of infringements upon their rights (reproductive and otherwise) in the name of "women's empowerment." For example, Puerto Rican women were used against their will and/or knowledge to test new birth control methods with uncomfortable, potentially dangerous, side effects.
For many women of color, reproductive rights means the ability to reproduce if they want to.
One of many things that bothers me about CNN's headline ("7 Billion Reasons to Empower Women") is that, grammatically, women are the subjects who are acted upon by someone else. Some other agent is empowering them. (I am pretty sure women can empower themselves.) More specifically, though, it appears to be a call for the "developed" (in this case read: white) world, including white feminists, to empower all those other women in the world (who are apparently too stupid to know how to take care of themselves and their families). Shockingly, women of color are just as capable of empowering themselves, without the benevolent aid of white women. Furthermore, it is an even bigger and more dangerous mistake to suppose that contraception equals empowerment. For a majority of women in the world this is not the case. In fact, the refusal of contraception itself could be seen as an act of empowerment.
Could we allow women around the world to empower themselves by letting them use their reproductive capacities as they wish? (And we, of course, would view it as "letting them," because we always have ultimate power.)
One may argue that even if population growth and contraception were initially associated with eugenics movements, that does not mean they aren't relevant concerns that might validly be considered independent of eugenics today. Surely eugenics is an outdated topic.
Unfortunately, eugenics is not outdated. The ideas have persisted and the acts have continued, albeit with less fanfare. (Only recently I linked to an article about a not-too-long-ago victim of eugenics in the United States.) It is a mistake to think that eugenics is a concern of the past. More importantly, population growth and contraception can't be considered independently of eugenics. The terms and principles were born within a eugencist framework and are eugenicist through and through. The very idea that the human population can be managed through technically advised control of reproduction? That is eugenics, by definition.
Moreover, pretending that population/contraception concerns can be separated from eugenics allows people to continue eugenicist projects under more benign guises. For example, the Ford Foundation can employ rhetoric about population control that is divorced from eugenics - even more, implement real projects, affecting masses of people around the world, based on this rhetoric - so that they can claim that their prime concern is actually "economic development" in the Third World. But it is not too difficult to pull back the mask and reveal the clearly racist bent of the Ford Foundation in general, across all of its projects.
To suggest that population/contraception can be considered independently of eugenics is in many ways to claim that racism does not exist anymore.
A CNN headline today read: "7 Billion Reasons to Empower Women." The article was about contraception. This was about as unsurprising to me as the sun rising, for the reason that contraception is also deeply interlinked with the eugenics/population control movement.
[For some interesting reading, you can consult:
Sex, Race & Science: Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward Larson
Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts
Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom by Wendy Kline
Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science & U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico by Laura Briggs]
Fears about unfettered population growth were deliberately created and exploited in an attempt to legitimize efforts at reproductive control. (There actually is no ironclad reason to believe that population growth is a threat.) And, as much as white feminists might protest, curbing reproduction has had far less to do with "empowering women" than it has with reducing the number of people of color on this planet.
Margaret Sanger, the feminist icon who most famously championed birth control as a means of "empowering women," was also an avowed eugenicist who supported the involuntary imposition of birth control on women of color.
In fact, women of color in the U.S. and abroad have been subject to all sorts of infringements upon their rights (reproductive and otherwise) in the name of "women's empowerment." For example, Puerto Rican women were used against their will and/or knowledge to test new birth control methods with uncomfortable, potentially dangerous, side effects.
For many women of color, reproductive rights means the ability to reproduce if they want to.
One of many things that bothers me about CNN's headline ("7 Billion Reasons to Empower Women") is that, grammatically, women are the subjects who are acted upon by someone else. Some other agent is empowering them. (I am pretty sure women can empower themselves.) More specifically, though, it appears to be a call for the "developed" (in this case read: white) world, including white feminists, to empower all those other women in the world (who are apparently too stupid to know how to take care of themselves and their families). Shockingly, women of color are just as capable of empowering themselves, without the benevolent aid of white women. Furthermore, it is an even bigger and more dangerous mistake to suppose that contraception equals empowerment. For a majority of women in the world this is not the case. In fact, the refusal of contraception itself could be seen as an act of empowerment.
Could we allow women around the world to empower themselves by letting them use their reproductive capacities as they wish? (And we, of course, would view it as "letting them," because we always have ultimate power.)
One may argue that even if population growth and contraception were initially associated with eugenics movements, that does not mean they aren't relevant concerns that might validly be considered independent of eugenics today. Surely eugenics is an outdated topic.
Unfortunately, eugenics is not outdated. The ideas have persisted and the acts have continued, albeit with less fanfare. (Only recently I linked to an article about a not-too-long-ago victim of eugenics in the United States.) It is a mistake to think that eugenics is a concern of the past. More importantly, population growth and contraception can't be considered independently of eugenics. The terms and principles were born within a eugencist framework and are eugenicist through and through. The very idea that the human population can be managed through technically advised control of reproduction? That is eugenics, by definition.
Moreover, pretending that population/contraception concerns can be separated from eugenics allows people to continue eugenicist projects under more benign guises. For example, the Ford Foundation can employ rhetoric about population control that is divorced from eugenics - even more, implement real projects, affecting masses of people around the world, based on this rhetoric - so that they can claim that their prime concern is actually "economic development" in the Third World. But it is not too difficult to pull back the mask and reveal the clearly racist bent of the Ford Foundation in general, across all of its projects.
To suggest that population/contraception can be considered independently of eugenics is in many ways to claim that racism does not exist anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)