Myths About Poor People

One crucial means by which the ideology of progress is sustained is the pervasive yet tacit act of mapping progress schematically onto the existing human population on the basis of race, class, gender, health status, and so on. As a consequence, certain people are made to bear pre-modern traits and represent the conditions from which more enlightened humans have evolved.

This past year poor people have been a  particularly favorite target of this ideological mapping, which imbues them with such primitive features as: laziness, irrationality (they spend their money on tvs and cellphones rather than food!), selfishness, addictive behavior, and foolishness (they needed to be educated about how to take care of themselves). The Poverty Myth:  people are poor because they don't want to work and they waste their money on drugs and tattoos. In the Social Darwinist view, these are the feebleminded runts of humanity who deserve to die off.

Aside from the structuring idea of progress, other assumptions underly The Poverty Myth.

1. A vast majority of human beings are naturally lazy and inept. Now, I don't think most people overtly think about this implication. However, ascribing to The Poverty Myth logically entails this belief on some level of consciousness. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the world lives in poverty. Somehow human beings were able to travel across continents, oceans, and ice bridges; successfully adapt to every climate on earth; learn how to hunt mammoths and buffalo.... and yet most humans are inherently lazy and stupid?  Admittedly, there is a certain plausibility to the Great Man Theory of history, if one does not look too far back. But if you examine the earliest years of human existence, the human population was just too small, and the number of obstacles overcome were too great, to sustain that theory. In order to figure out how to cross the Pacific ocean in a small boat, or to survive in the Arctic or the desert, the genius and perseverance of almost every member of these small communities was required. So if the majority of the world's population can't even manage to feed itself hundreds of millennia later, humans have undergone some major devolution.

2. (in response to my conclusion to #1) They may not be naturally lazy and inept, but a vast majority of human beings are handicapped by __CULTURE__ or __SIN__ or __RELIGION__ (fill in the blank however you like). Regardless of how you fill in the blank, the condition of poor people is attributed to their habits and beliefs. Even if it is learned, it is still their fault.  Once again, though, if one goes back to the earliest human beings, one has to wonder if any of these things was really absent then, and why is it all of a sudden working against humanity now? Of course, the real culprit is our social system. In the modern world, capitalism necessitates unemployment (the "natural unemployment level"), low wages, and de facto (or real!) slave labor. Capitalism organizes production so that wealth is continually redistributed into the hands of fewer and fewer people. In the modern era, poverty occurs because people cannot organize production to satisfy their own needs, cannot earn enough money to feed themselves, and sometimes cannot find any role in society at all.

Plus, one has to account for the fact that the characteristics associated with poor people often apply as or more aptly to rich people. In this society, rich people (particular those with an inheritance) are much more likely to be lazy and and feel entitled than poor people. Rich people do cocaine and get addicted to prescription pain meds and spend their money on frivolous, irrational things (like jewelry for their pets).

TIME OUT:  How are we defining "lazy" and "hardworking"?  If we are defining the latter in terms of duration of a task or the physical strength required, poor people have rich people beat.  Poor people work multiple jobs. They work in plantations, mines, and factories. They work as maids, field hands, and construction workers. This is the hardest work of all! If you are trying to argue that wealth is associated with hard work, then you would have to define the latter in terms of intellectual labor. Of course, it is not always the case that the ideas come from the top of the hierarchy, or that innovation is independent of opportunity (both in terms of education and employment). Maybe that woman in the Apple sweatshop could be a Steve Jobs if she were born into different circumstances. To contend that the fact of her current existence alone proves she does not have such capabilities is to merely employ circular reasoning. Furthermore (and this is a whole different story for another day), it is not so easy to prove that wealth is a function of good ideas.

3. Starvation and disease are appropriate punishments for laziness. Let's just assume for a second that poverty is caused by laziness. Is it really just - does it fit the "crime" - that lazy people should starve to death? [Well, sure. If someone refuses to do the work to feed themselves, why should they not starve?] Social science to the rescue! Pretty much every human being on this planet has enough of a self-preservation instinct  - and a strong enough drive for food  - to make that level of laziness impossible. No one is so lazy that they will not feed themselves if they can feed themselves. [Yes, but if someone is always there feeding them, why would they do it themselves?] Clearly, for most of the world, someone is NOT there feeding them, and that is why so many people die of starvation. Even in a welfare state, most people find it demeaning to live on "handouts" and anyway, these are often not sufficient to sate the basic human urges that would impel them, in the absence of obstacles, to work harder. People who talk about welfare queens and the high life of food stamps obviously do not have an experience with poverty that would enable them to make such judgments.

So let's get rid of this ridiculous notion that a considerable number of people are too lazy to feed themselves. The only plausible indolence is the lack of desire to work beyond what is necessary to obtain the means of satisfying basic human urges and necessities. 

So what. I am lazy. I do not like to work. I rarely work for the entire 8 hours that I am at the office because it is not necessary. Do I deserve to live in tatters on the street, watching my body decay of malnutrition and AIDS? 

Or is laziness more of a tendency that everyone has to some degree, depending on conditions and varying according to the circumstances  - not a static and consistently manifested trait, not an essence.

Where did we get this idea that laziness is the worst thing in the world? This is where we circle back to the ideology of progress.

Progress or Dystopia, Part 4

Equal Rights

The last main claim in support of progress is that modern society is so much more tolerant and progressive than “traditional” societies. We ended slavery. We ended Jim Crow. Women entered the workforce. Gays can serve in the military. Let’s pat ourselves on the back.

I addressed some of these claims in my post about issue based change versus systemic change. If you think the U.S. has eradicated its racial caste system, read Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow. If you think modern, industrial societies have successfully dealt with racism, read any comment thread that exists anywhere on the internet. If you think women are liberated, look at statistics concerning rape and eating disorders, examine the gendered division of labor in any industry or organization, and look at the images of women promulgated by the entertainment industry. If you think America (or any other industrial society) is a melting pot, pay attention to discussions (and I use that word lightly) about immigration. You do not need to look hard to find hateful language directed at any particular group of people. In fact, the internet has made it easier to disseminate this vitriol.

The fact of the matter is, all of the social/economic/political processes that demand structured inequality remain in place. It is important to note that the ideological basis of these divisions and prejudices are completely modern:

-The concept of “race” developed in the Enlightenment era as a means of creating divisions among the population of people oppressed by the nascent capitalist system. It has continued to function as a mechanism for segregating interests and obtaining free or cheap labor.

-The relegation of women’s work to the domestic sphere was a product of the new division of labor that emerged when production moved outside of the home and into the factory. Furthermore, the absorption of women into the post-WW2 labor force is a reflection of the need for cheap labor, an expanded labor force and a new market for manufactured goods (dishwashers! washing machines! mass-produced clothes!). The combination of these two forces (domestic responsibility and careers outside the home) has only served to double the burden that women must bear. Now women are expected to do it all.

-Michel Foucault argued that the idea of “homosexuality” (even more, sexuality in general) did not arise until the late 19th century, and has served to make sexual activities definitive of a person’s entire identity and consciousness as a human being. Some scholars have provided evidence that the creation of “homosexuality” as a pathological mode of being was born out of eugenicist fears that white reproduction was not occurring at a healthy rate. It should never be forgotten that “homosexuality” was a scientific/medical concept before it entered popular discourse.

-It can be just as convincingly argued that fears/abhorrence of immigrants, terrorists, Muslims, and the like, are byproducts of colonialism and nation-building, especially the creation of immutable state boundaries, the ideals of ethnically “pure” states, and all the various forms of neocolonialism that produce backlash against the modern world order.

The prejudices that modernity, in all of its enlightened glory, is supposedly ameliorating are the very prejudices created by modernity.

Progress or Dystopia, Part 3

Democracy

Then there is the argument that, whatever flaws our current system may have, at least we are freeing ourselves from the shackles of tradition and tyranny. Democracy is spreading around the world. Surely, no one can deny that the formation of modern democracy is a marker of human progress.

What’s really at work here is another case of “loaded words.” Sometimes, using particular terminology may hinder a thorough reflection on the realities of a situation. It is clear, if one looks beyond the façade of elections and representatives, that the only form of rule that exists is oligarchy. The average citizen in this modern world, no matter to which country she or he belongs, does not have any say whatsoever in how society is organized or how it functions.

It’s a wonder that a country like the U.S. can even sustain the illusion of any sort of real participation. People can choose between two candidates that have been pre-selected for them by party elites and corporate donors, and with whom they may have very little in common. People in the U.S. often lament that fact that neither candidate really represents their views or talks about the things they feel are important. Yet, for some reason this does not give anyone pause about the U.S.’s status as a democracy, or to rethink the idea of democracy in any critical way. How is it empowering to go into a high school gym every few years and bubble in the name of someone who doesn’t really represent your views? What kind of “voice” is that really?

Then, there is the matter of campaign rhetoric versus reality. Stated views – in fact, the entire structured opposition between (or among) the parties – often have little to do with actual policy. I have presented evidence on numerous occasions of the continuity between presidential administrations in the U.S., regardless of political party. It does not matter whether a Republican or Democrat is in office. And it does not matter what any candidate’s or party’s official views are; those views bear very little resemblance to what actually happens. (The fact that a Republican governor – and now presidential candidate – enacted such a similar healthcare plan to the current Democratic president, despite all of the polarized rhetoric that has come to characterize the issue, only goes to show that the rhetoric itself is more for show than anything else.)

In fact, the people who are elected into office are largely irrelevant. All of them merely exist to sustain an illusion of representative democracy, and, in actual fact, always carry out the agenda of the global elite. The people who pull the strings and call the shots do not change and are not affected by elections. Elections are scripted, flashy and designed to distract people from what is really going on before their own eyes.

As I have argued before, the seeming lack of democracy in other countries is merely a result of poverty, with its concomitant difficulties in sustaining the necessary ideological infrastructure.  Like technology, the enjoyment of civil rights tends to be limited mostly to the well-to-do (globally speaking).  It is a benefit that exists only by virtue of a system that simultaneously deprives others of many comforts and securities.  Of course, for those of us who are fortunate enough to live in such conditions, it is nice to be able to voice our opinions without fear of retribution.  The other side of that coin is, the ideological infrastructure that makes this condition possible also ensures that we live in ignorance.  The question is then, is it better to know the truth and not be able to say it with impunity, or to be completely in the dark, but still able to say whatever you want?  I would also argue that "freedom of speech" is honored only so long as it is not threatening.  Julian Assange can tell you that.  And, of course, modern democracies always have recourse to "emergency powers" (one benefit of being at war) and means of legalizing all manner of abrogations of supposedly guaranteed constitutional rights.  If you live in the U.S., for example, you can be surveilled in any number of ways, detained without any probable suspicion, and denied rights of due process.  Just ask Muslims.  Or black men.

A constitution does not guarantee that people will be treated without prejudice, or that their privacy will be respected.

And voting does not change who is in power. It does not alter the basic structure and functioning of society. It only serves to legitimate the system. No one has any more voice in today’s society than they would have had at any other time in history. The only difference is that we are now less likely to see what is really going on, and more likely to continue in our delusions that we, the people, have the power.

Progress or Dystopia, Part 2

Technology

Another common argument supporting the idea of progress is that modern technology has made life so much more efficient and comfortable. We are saved from so much time-consuming, draining toil. We can produce so much and never have to wait long for anything. Who wouldn’t agree that technology has made our lives better?

I think the big consideration here is, it depends on who the “we” is. For many Americans, yes, life is undoubtedly better. However, we must ask ourselves, are “we” all that matter? What about those other people? The people who have to work in factories, in mines, on plantations. The people who don’t get days off and don’t get paid enough to stop working anyway. The people who have to perform the same menial assembly line tasks over and over and over. The people who live in areas torn apart by conflict, drug and human trafficking, and poverty. The people who don’t have enough to eat. Are all of these people (representing a sizeable portion of the entire world’s population) really better off than they would be, for example, living in a small community, doing farm work for their own subsistence and supplementing their needs with crafts and trade?

Poverty and inequality are fairly universal across time and space. But a system in which most of the people on this planet have no choice about how to sustain themselves, and are forced to perform dehumanizing labor, and do not have enough to feed themselves and their families on a regular basis.... that is an entirely new phenomenon. There is a big difference between the limited poverty that results from interpersonal relations or environmental conditions (for which one can plan and adapt) and poverty on an unprecedentedly large scale that is necessitated by the functioning of a global system, over which most people have no control. There is a significant difference between a person’s role being determined by a small community with mutually shared interests (a community which the person is free to leave) and a person’s livelihood being completely determined on a regional basis by a global elite with which most people do not have any personal contact or relationship (also making it impossible for anyone to “escape” the system of control).

Plus, even for those segments of the population that get to enjoy all of the benefits of modern technology, it is still a double-edged sword. We get convenience, efficiency, and comfort on the one hand. (Though comfort is relative.) But we also get advanced weaponry, environmental degradation, dehumanizing productive processes (and alienation), materialism (people who devote their entire lives to such ridiculous, superficial considerations as what colors are “in” this season), sophisticated mechanisms of control and information-gathering (your bank knows more about you than you realize), weakened communal bonds (in favor of more plentiful and scattered long-distance relationships), fewer choices (more and more products and services are falling into the hands of a few mega-conglomerates), and less enriching forms of relaxation and entertainment. Since it is really a balance of superficial pleasures and grave, wide-reaching destruction, I would say the scale might tip against technology.

Of course, my position cannot be reduced to simple opposition to technology. I am suggesting that we might think more deeply about the benefits and harms of technology. I am contending that the image of “progress” as it relates to technology is too distorted. It is possible, if the current world order could be broken, and something more humane were to take its place, there could be positive uses for technology. We would just have to think very carefully about all of the potential consequences.

Progress or Dystopia?

[Note:  I just decided to break this subject into multiple posts, but I am too lazy to change my intro.]


I have already characterized the notion of progress as the central component of an ideology that is strategically used to justify the modern social order. If we believe that “things may not be perfect, but it is better than anything else,” and “at least things are better than they were in the past,” how motivated are we going to be to rock the boat?

What I want to do now is really provide a detailed challenge to the idea of social progress. In fact, I would argue quite earnestly that what we have now is the worst of all possible worlds. I believe that we live in a dystopia, and that in many ways things were better in the past. I do not mean to romanticize or idealize the past. Certainly I do not think things have ever been perfect. However, I do believe that inequality and oppression have spiraling out of control, and there is some value in questioning the current social order.

Let’s start with health. One of the most common claims in the favor of modernity is that we have eradicated all sorts of diseases and extended the human lifespan. The former contention is misleading, and while the latter is true, it is uncritically reflected upon. Undoubtedly there are many diseases that we no longer have to worry about. No Polio. No Bubonic Plague. Yet, there are new diseases (e.g. AIDS), some of which have been directly caused by our cherished “medical advances” (e.g. MERSA). New diseases will continue to evolve and thwart human progress. Then, there are those diseases that are on the rise, some, once again, as a result of modernity (like Diabetes). Modernity creates as many problems as it solves.

Well, what about that lengthened human lifespan, then? There are two parts to the counter-argument. First, medical advances have not eliminated the occurrence of early demise.  There are many opportunities offered by modernity for untimely, tragic (sometimes gory) death: advanced weaponry, automobiles (the number of deaths caused every year from car accidents should never be discounted), industrial accidents, and the type of alienation that results in suicide and mass-shootings, just to name a few. In fact, one could even argue that, to the extent that we have heightened the psychological discomfort surrounding certain kinds of death (especially as a long life becomes normalized), these untimely deaths are a greater source of suffering and loss than they were in the past.

Second, one must question the nature of the extended portion of a typical lifespan. Do those extra years really bring extra joy and personal fulfillment? Having seen way too many old people with severe loss of mental functioning (and that is not to mention the physical decline!), I would say “no.” Coupling the extended lifespan with the atomization of social life engendered by modern social formations, we have created a whole segment of the population that feels unneeded and irrelevant, with no essential purpose to their lives, and with little ability to support themselves in a world with high costs of living and little social supports. Furthermore, even if medical treatments can keep people alive, they can do nothing to stop the inevitable deterioration of mind and body. The one grandparent of mine whose final years I did not find utterly depressing and pathetic was the one who died before he reached 80. Old age is not something that I desire; it is something I fear.

How about our advanced understanding of the human body?  Surely that will lead to additional cures and a means of halting mental and physical degradation, right?  I am not too sure about how advanced anyone's understanding is.  I have already mentioned this in my series on health.  However, having long term physical injury was enough to convince me that no doctor had any idea how my body worked.  I saw a range of professionals and they disagreed about the most fundamental things... and they all turned out to be wrong in important ways.  The more deeply you are involved in the profession, the more apparent are the gaps in understanding.  For example, so many drugs are developed by trial-and-error (it just happened to work for some reason) and not due to any understanding of the condition itself or the mechanism of the treatment.  The image of progress in knowledge and understanding is another strategically deployed illusion of modernity.

Furthermore, one must not completely discount the types of treatments used before or outside the bounds of modern medicine.  Recently I went with a pharmacist friend of mind to an apothecary museum.  Many of the visitors laughed at the antiquated treatments, but my friend pointed out how many of them are still used today.  Moreover, pharmaceutical companies are scouring the globe and ripping off indigenous populations in an attempt to monopolize and commodify this supposedly "primitive" knowledge of plants and herbs.

Now, I am not staying that modern medicine is completely without basis, or that it has offered us nothing.  I am merely pointing out that the image of enlightenment and progress associated with its practices is quite a bit overstated.

Empowerment: Racist Rhetoric

I have already talked about the Western obsession with “empowering” women in other parts of the world (see here and here). Today I ran across this article detailing yet another statement to this effect: “this White House paper sums up by saying that 'across all [these] objectives, we will: deepen our engagement with Africa's young leaders; seek to empower marginalized populations and women...'”

I don’t really have anything new to say. I just felt my point was worth emphasizing. The discourse about empowering women and “marginalized populations” in other countries is a means of: 1) Asserting Western moral and cultural superiority (a sneaky form of racism); 2) Reinforcing the narrative of Progress; 3) Obfuscating domestic inequalities; and 4) Providing justification for various sorts of intervention (neocolonialism).

Most tellingly, this rhetoric is premissed on the assumption that it is Western powers that must do the empowering, while women and subalterns are passive recipients of empowerment, unable to act on their own accord.

It feels so good to be the Savior.

Prevention Rhetoric

Every so often in the U.S. (this is true all over, but I stick with what I know), someone who never attracted too much attention before will buy a bunch of weapons and go on a killing spree. Everyone is shocked, of course. And ultimately, there is speculation and debate about how this might be prevented from happening in the future.

Prevention may be sought at the level of policy: say, gun control laws? It also may be attempted at the level of individual psychology: looking for the so-called “warning signs” that supposedly, if we are vigilant, can alert us to potential disaster.

Prevention discourse is a perfect example of the way in which the contradictory aims of neoliberalism and government function together in modern capitalist society. On the one hand, prevention rhetoric forms a key component of governmental power and the ideology of progress. That is, the impulse to try to rationally order human life to maximize happiness and minimize harm, along with the belief that this goal is attainable. Or, in raw terms: the urge to manage human beings with the tools of law and science (especially psychology) for the purpose of the common good.

On the other hand, prevention discourse simultaneously locates responsibility for phenomena NOT in the structure of society as a whole, not in the system itself, but in individuals. That, of course, is why psychology is key. (Once individuals are responsible for personal and collective goods, interventions can take place at the individual level.)

The problem is, responsibility does ultimately lie in the system itself, as much as people may want to attribute things like mass killings to some mystical psychosis or neurosis. We live in a society in which the production of arms in ridiculously large quantities is vital to the functioning of the economy. We operate within an economic system that alienates and dehumanizes masses of people. Our consciousness is permeated by a discourse that frames violence as a useful tool that can be justified by a variety of ends. To the latter point, I find it a bit ironic that the same people who are so horrified by an act of violence are, in the next moment, advocating (and almost relishing the thought of) violence against the perpetrator as a just and noble act.

It is impossible to prevent people from doing things that are unexpected. It is impossible to control people. Attempting some sort of technocratic solution to violence of this nature is futile. (A friend of mine tried to start a discussion about "If guns were regulated like cars..."; I was so tempted to respond:  yes, and those regulations adequately prevent drunk/angry/mentally impaired people from driving and killing people.)  Government policies and psychological research may be unable to restrain human actions, but the system itself, in terms of the availability of the means of violence that it proffers and the attitudes toward violence that it engenders, can make these mass killings more or less likely.

Book Review: Fordlandia

...The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten Jungle City

This account of Henry Ford’s ill-fated Amazonian rubber plantation also provides some history of the rubber and auto industries as well as the life and work of Henry Ford himself. I enjoyed it, mainly because I thought it was well-written and just plain interesting. Sometimes it’s nice to have a break from philosophical gymnastics and pedantic intellectualism, to just enjoy a story.

Yet the story was not without a point. The author, Greg Grandin, clearly emphasized the impossibility of controlling the negative effects of capitalism and the naivety of technocratic idealism. Henry Ford served as a symbol of the Ideology of Progress, the hope that science and technology can perfect society.

In fact, from a philosophical standpoint, what I found most interesting about the book was the way it illustrated the relationship between capitalism and government (the impulse to rationally control society). Henry Ford embodied these two forces better than anyone else. As such, he serves as a good entry point for an examination of the ways in which these phenomena both mutually reinforce and undercut each other, how they can spring from disparate ideals yet still be manipulated by the same dominant groups.

Common ways of construing the relationship between capitalism and government are simplistic. The two are seen only as opposing forces. Government interferes with capitalism; such interference may be viewed as beneficial, to the extent that one acknowledges any shortcomings of capitalism. To this end, capitalism and government are seen as the province of independent entities, the latter generally of the state.

I have already argued that government originates and extends beyond the state, in contrast to the view that the two are synonymous. On the other hand, it is also overly reductive to assume that capitalism and government work seamlessly together, managed by an elite conspiratorial cabal. A capitalist may be interested in social engineering, but may also come into conflict with the state, transnational organizations, nonprofits, community groups, and other capitalists, any of which may also be interested in the same governmental projects.

Henry Ford was motivated by profit. No doubt. Yet he was also an idealist, who sometimes let his drive for profit take a backseat to his quest for a better society. Unlike the stereotypical capitalist, Ford was interested in conservation, cared about the lifestyle and wellbeing of his employees, and vehemently opposed war. He expended a considerable amount of money developing a "sociology department" (which kept tabs on the habits of his employees) as well as providing quality healthcare, and in some cases (for example, Fordlandia) housing and meals. Ford bought into the promises of the Ideology of Progress - that technology could liberate humans from hard labor and dependence on the whims of nature; that capitalism could effectively regulate the distribution of resources and labor; that wage labor could build moral character and generate prosperity; that modernization could have a "civilizing" effect around the globe. Thus, Henry Ford was compelled to act in certain ways purely due to his belief that people should be healthy, productive, and morally upright. He was interested in people in their own right, and not just as forms of capital.

Yet he also opposed projects of other organizations that were motivated by the same concerns. He fought against state intervention (even when it mimicked his own projects) and despised FDR's New Deal programs. He pioneered the Five Dollar Day (a high wage at the time) and provisioned health care, but he was ruthless in his treatment of unions.

There is, I think, a better way of understanding the complex relationship between capitalism and government. It is true that individual capitalists (and others in positions of dominance) are able to wield disproportionate control over the distrinbution of resources, organization of production, and other aspects of social reality, even if they are only able to do so by virtue of the existing social structure, based as it is on inequality. However, one must not assume that they are all working together, or that there is some master plan. Of course everyone looks after their own self-interest. This necessarily leads capitalists into conflict with each other, because every individual succeeds at the expense of many of the others.

Yet, there are some general conditions which are necessary for the capitalist system to function, and this forms a base of shared interests. The state is one important arena in which shared interests are negotiated and protected. Even here, though, there is not total coordination among the members of the supposed capitalist "class." Many cannot connect all the dots and are unaware of the necessity of these general conditions - possibly because their understanding is distorted by ideology - while some are so concerned with short-term personal gain that the long-term prospects of the system itself are of no consequence to them. It is this fact, more than any other, that accounts for "politics" (as opposed to, say, the harmonious coordination and brainwash-based consent of the world of 1984).

But I must take better account of ideology in this scenario. It is true that ideology derives from and often works to support the system (and in that way furthers capitalist aims). It is also true that it may be strategically employed in a disingenous way. Yet it is not just a "lie" used to brainwash the masses (once again, a la 1984). Ideology fundamentally shapes the consciousness of many, many people from all levels of the social hierarchy. As such, when ideology is embraced by capitalists, it may hinder an awareness of what is really necessary for the system to function, and it may even cause a capitalist to knowingly act contrary to the profit motive. Henry Ford demonstrates both of these cases. For example, he did not realize that his refusal to cooperate with unions would result in dramatically increased worker unrest. It was not until a series of violent episodes and the success of a sit-down strike that he realized the necessity of cooperation as a general condition. And Fordlandia is the ultimate example of ideology before profit. Fordlandia was a drain on Ford's resources, and yet he continued to invest in the operation, with the rationale that it was a "civilizing mission."

Ideology, like profit, represents both shared and conflicting interests among the capitalist class. Most accept the set of ideologies associated with modernity (as these represent a dominant mode of thought overall). At the same time, some may emphasize different aspects over others, or hold different opinions regarding how best to achieve these ideals.

It may be said, given all of the above discussion, that the "forces of dominance" in our world are less individual people, and more the complete assemblage of social artifacts (social structure, physical infrastructure, ideas, discourses, modes of communication etc.) that has accrued throughout the entire human history of production and interaction. We are really, in a sense, slaves to our own creations - and the "our" here includes our ancestors.

The Superhero as the Ubermensch and the Trope of Good Vs Evil

With The Avengers movie out, I thought I would make a little time for reflection on pop culture. Though there is no dearth of analyses that isolate recurring themes and root them in certain aspects of the human experience, I hope that my own critical variation on this process will not seem too stale. I am not trying to expound some brilliant, novel take on the superhero genre, but rather trying to fit this phenomenon into my own societal narrative (which I have been detailing in this blog).

What strikes me most about the superhero genre is the particular role played by science and technological progress. Superheroes are often portrayed as either career scientists or brainy dilettantes, and the acquisition of superpowers generally occurs as a byproduct of experimentation (or in the case of some - Iron Man, Black Widow, Captain America etc. - through technological “enhancement” of the body and/or the use of advanced weaponry). It is the perfect narrative of Progress. Man is surpassed through science and technology. It is obvious how this derives from and feeds into the Ideology of Progress.

To that end, it is no coincidence that supervillains (e.g. Doctor Doom, Loki, etc.) sometimes practice sorcery (making them representatives of the horrors of pre-modern life). Yet, more often than not, supervillains are as much scientifically-inclined, technologically-enhanced supermen as their superhero counterparts (making them adequate rivals). In the comic book world, what separates Good from Evil is primarily a matter of individual psychology. Supervillians usually have some traumatizing back story that explains their psychological and moral impairment. Furthermore, since supervillians often represent, with varying degrees of subtlety, communists, Nazis, dictators, terrorists, industrialists, and psychopaths, comic book stories construct worlds in which the evils of society are in no way structural, but rather are completely personal. The only way to combat Evil in these worlds is by recourse to violence. The message is clear: it is hard to prevent people from developing psychopathic personalities; the only way to save society is to develop superior “weaponry” to use against these Evil-doers.

I have already written about violence: its seeming necessity within the bounds of the current system, its supposed naturalness, its strategic attribution to personal factors such as religious beliefs, ethnic identity, and even individual psychology. I noted that violence is fundamentally structural and, in other posts, I have argued that the enigmatic violence of Nazis, dictators, and terrorists must be understood in historic and political-economic context. It is clear what the comic book portrayal of Evil does: it obviates an understanding of history and social structure and justifies the use of violence. This tactic, in general, is very politically useful. For example, 10 years ago Saddam Hussein was described as an “evil-doer” and a member of the “Axis of Evil,” but rarely as a puppet of Western interests in the Middle East.

Now, that is not, of course, to say that the superhero genre is a creation of some base political interest. As I have argued before, ideologies may have an appeal all of their own – after all, they do tend to be totalizing narratives that can simplify and explain human experience (and that is satisfying). Questions of origin are rarely productive; it should be enough to say that the ideological realm and social reality are mutually sustaining. That is the idea of the dialectic. Of course, in Marxist tradition, the answer to the origin question is that material reality is ontologically prior to ideology. Still, ideology does have a life of its own that cannot be reduced to the relations of production. Here, though, is the Marxist trump card: one may still critique ideology for the view of social reality that it promotes. This is where I would say that the superhero genre, while innocent, is generally not helpful to the cause of social transformation.

I also have a kind of random question to throw out there: are all superheroes white? Just wondering…

The Technocratic Foundation of Law

Although ideology is not purely ideational and discourses are material social facts, law is more than a codification of social contract ideology. No theorization of law would be complete without an account of the institutional arrangements, artifacts, and practices associated with its material existence. Yet, for all the Marxist analyses of contracts and law that I have read, I have not encountered one that thoroughly interrogates the significance of the written record, or juries, or the presentation of evidence. 

The practices of modern legal institutions are based on the same complex of positivist/enlightenment thought (including the ideology of progress) that pervade other modern social institutions. In fact, the barrier between law and various human and natural sciences is quite permeable. In many ways it could be said that law acts as an arm of science. Not only are scientific procedures used to elaborate and clarify evidence (DNA testing, ballistic analysis, drug screening, etc.), but the courtroom is an important arena in which ideas about the limitations of human knowledge and perception, the validity of various forms of evidence, and the intersections of social deviance and free will are worked out, refined, and transformed.

More than this, one must look at the ultimate goals toward which these legal practices are oriented. It is not merely the enforcement of contracts and the preservation of the division of labor. The governmental impulse to reform and rationalize all aspects of human life is absent nowhere, least of all here. Law is used as an instrument of Benthamite cost-benefit analsyis. Individual pleasures and collective goods are weighed against personal limitations and injuries (e.g., the detention of a single person for the good of the community).

According to the ideology of progress, continually improved legal procedures are a means by which society can be ordered in the most beneficial and efficient way possible. For instance, an entire spate of laws relating to marriage and childcare seek to impose normative representations of family life, or acceptable variations thereof. Psychological categories of sanity and criminality are used to determine who may exercise the full rights of citizenship, and correspondingly be held responsible for breaches of law (in other words, what “deviant” behaviors will prevent one from fully participating in the social contract). Matters of individual consciousness and belief are carefully, almost mathematically, weighed against the imperatives of social welfare (the need for a proper education, access to healthcare, etc.).  From the point of view of progress, it is the rationality of law, more than anything else, that can perform the cost-benefit analyses (under a guise of neutrality and abstraction) on which governmentality rests. 

Going hand in hand with this liberal, reformist impulse is a tendency to objectify and discretely measure ambiguous concepts like pleasure and pain. Mental anguish and psychological disturbances may be awarded monetary compensation. Pleasure, belief, and “lifestyle” are components of cost-benefit analysis. (Note, for example, that Heather Mills was awarded so much money in her divorce from Paul McCartney, simply because she was accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and it would diminish her pleasure and personal fulfillment if she were not able to maintain that lifestyle.) Of course, absent from this calculus are any notions of the potential value of suffering or pitfalls of pleasure, both of which are important in a variety of pre-modern value systems. **I don’t know that Marx would view this as anything more than the natural course of evolution, owing to the fact that his own thought was often pervaded by the ideology of progress. It is interesting, in this regard, to draw upon more “deconstructivist” scholars such as Talal Asad for detailed analysis of these changes.

Finally, the sanctity of the written word in legal proceedings, while undoubtedly following from positivist ideology, also firmly establishes legal institutions as bureaucratic networks, dependent as they are on records. The use of written documents in court, for example, captures life in the “outside world,” as well as real-time events in the courtroom, and brings them into the web of institutional objects, which can be circulated, copied, embedded in other documents, and appropriated for other purposes (like the common practice of referring to prior cases).

So, then, what makes legal institutions different from other bureaucracies? What distinguishes the law from government agencies of various sorts? The answer to these questions will be the subject of my next post.

Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?

A recent debate at New York University sought to answer this question. Now, normally I ignore these things when they pop up in the news, because I have absolutely no interest in these discussions and think it is all nonsense: from the formation of the question to the concluding statements. I decided to listen to this one, however, because I have been wanting for some time to do a post where I evaluate a debate and pull apart the arguments. Also, I had already started to write about religion, so I thought I may as well get it all out in one fell swoop, include this discussion in the mix, and then most likely not bring up religion again in any systematic way.

As it turned out, this debate was worse than I expected, and it conclusively shows that you can have an impressive CV, advanced degrees, and best-selling books, and still be utterly stupid. This goes for all sides, who were equally terrible; though, I must say, while the opposing (pro-religion) side performed as I had expected, the supporting side was far more lacking in sanity and depth than I could ever have imagined (perhaps solely due to the train wreck that was the philosopher). I will say this for the latter: it is pretty impressive when you manage to come off as racist (or Eurocentric, to put it politely), standing next to the man who wrote a book claiming that president Obama is an angry, racist Kenyan.  (That man is Dinesh D'Souza, Fox News Superstar, and member of the opposing side in this debate.) I thought it odd that they would involve such a raving lunatic in the debate, but D'Souza, oddly enough, did not sound that rabid compared to the others. It probably says more about everyone else that it does D'Souza. And it really says something about the others, because I make this statement despite, I will admit, having a very passionate abhorrence of Dinesh D'Souza. He just makes me so ANGRY!

I found it interesting that, for the pro-religion side, there were only representatives of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There were no Muslims, no Hindus. All participants were men, all were middle-upper class, all were British or U.S. citizens. Thus, the perspectives on both sides were quite limited.

Before moving on to the debate itself, I have one more preliminary comment in the form of an elaboration on my statement that this is all nonsense. In light of my anthropological/deconstructive view of religion, the question itself does not make any sense. If religion is not a single entity with any sort of essence, and can thus not exist in any linear causal relationship with any other aspect of society, then it follows that religion cannot have any particular "effects."  It does not exist on one side of some mathematical equation that would allow one to isolate its positive and negative effects, in order to employ a cost-benefit analysis.  In children's terms: religion does not make people good, and it does not make people bad. Even in Marx's dialogical view, religion was shaped by people and their needs as much as it shaped them. More importantly, because the consruction of "religion"is so instrumental to the narrative of "modernity," and because the institutional elements associated with "religion" are part and parcel of large-scale institutional transformations that shaped the modern world, "religion" is both a creation and necessary component of modernity.  Questioning whether the world would be better off without religion is like asking if the world would be better off without the economy. It just does not make sense.

Now, to move on to the debate. I can think of no more pleasurable way of discussing it, than with a blow-by-blow commentary.

The participants:
Darwin Jr. (Matthew Chapman, Darwin's great-great-great-grandson, or something like that)
Philosopher (A.C. Grayling - what. a. moron.)
Rabbi (David Wolpe... a cute man, but lackluster debater)
Right-Wing Crazy (Dinesh D'Souza)

*Note: since everyone speaking with a British accent sounds alike, I often had trouble distinguishing between Darwin Jr. and Philosopher.

Philosopher: We are not here to argue the existence of God or whether it is rational to believe in God, but rather the sociological implications of religion as a man-made (hello, sexism!) social institution.
Andddd..... wrong. It does not take very long at all for this to turn into a discussion about rationality and belief. Just wait.
All religions have two things in common: monolithic ideology (if you don't subscribe to our views, you will be sanctioned); this is directly opposed to Enlightenment philosophy and the values of liberal democracy (pluralism, individual autonomy, liberty, democracy). 
So you're not going to share the second thing religions have in common?  Well you're a tease. But as to the first - monolithic ideology - I will say two things (and I, for one, will actually get to the second). First, it is not true that all religions have a monolithic ideology, in the terms outlined by Philosopher (forcing subscription to a single view via threat of sanction). Buddhism, of course, is a great example. But other religions contain sects within them that are more "open" or "tolerant" (whatever word you prefer) to different religions and points of view. There are a substantial number of religious people who do not try to impose sanctions on those who believe differently.  Therefore, that feature is not a necessary defining element of religion (of course, there are no necessary defining characteristics of religion).  Point two, all ideology is in some sense monolithic, and that is just how human society works. For example, I would ask, do certain nations not have to face sanctions from the UN and/or the U.S. for not following the principles of democracy which are imposed, with violent force, around the world? The argument made is that violence is sometimes necessary to spread the principles of democracy. This characteristic cannot be confined to religion. Now, as to the statement about "Enlightenment philosophy" and "the values of liberal democracy" (of which Philosopher tautologically lists "democracy" as one) I will have to set aside a post-colonial critique of these concepts, because it is a whole different, complicated discussion in itself. My post on the ideology of progress just scratches the surface. My only comment now will be that, the invocation of these values shows that Philosopher is residing in a fairly non-progressive domain of academia, and is apparently unaware of or unconcerned by many of the valid critiques about the inherent Eurocentrism and racism embedded in these views.
Also, everything good about religious morality is shared by non-religious ethical outlooks. Ancient Greek values were derived from reason and human experience. 
Right, right right.  But the question is not whether the world would be worse without religion, it is whether it would be better. The burden of proof is to demonstrate that the world would, in fact, be better, and therefore this argument is irrelevant.
Final point: what's wrong with "moderate religion"? Moderate religion means that people do cherry-picking, and that is hypocrisy.  At the other end are people who take their religion extremely seriously - "the extremists." They are the most honest, because they remain committed to tradition and stay closest to the texts. If that is real religion, honest religion, then the world is very much better without it. And if the world is better without the most true and honest form of the religion, why not put the hypocrites in with them too?
The concept of "tradition" is problematic because no human practice is static and understood in exactly the same way by all practitioners. Tradition is constantly interpreted and reinterpreted to fit the circumstances at hand. Who are you, Philosopher, to determine that there is one "correct" method of interpretation to apply to traditions and texts, and that anyone who interprets things differently is necessarily a "hypocrite" or dishonest? Who gave you the authority to determine what is "real" religion, and what is mere cherry-picking? However, I am most interested by your statement, "If that is real religion, honest religion, then the world is very much better without it." Isn't that the proposition you are supposed to be trying to defend? Up to this point, you have kind of been skirting around the issue. You gave one easily refutable argument at the beginning, but have been padding your opening statement with irrelevant musings ever since.  Now you simply repeat the very statement you are supposed to prove.  You can't just say "the world is very much better without it" - you have to give reasons why this is the case. A restatement of the proposition you are trying to defend does not constitute an argument. I hope you teach that in your philosophy courses.

Rabbi: The good deeds of religion do not make headlines. The largest aid organization in the world is a Christian organization. The difference between religious aid workers and others is they stay. If tomorrow you took religion out of the world, the world would be tremendously impoverished in terms of the way in which people who are in trouble get help. 
I don't know if it's because he reminds me of a Seinfeld character, but of all points made in this discussion, this is the hardest to counter based on the limitations imposed by the question itself. The part about staying is particularly important in the world of foreign aid, though this does get addressed by someone on the other team, who notes that proselytization plays a role in the length of stay. This is true, and, from my perspective, that is one big drawback of religious aid. But, sticking to the question at hand, one would have to determine whether conversion is a greater evil than poverty or starvation.  I know how Philosopher and Darwin Jr. might respond, but I am also willing to bet neither has experienced true poverty.  Additionally, there is the fact that, if we are talking specifically about Christian aid, the recipients (much of the Third World) are already Christian, and to a much greater degree than many people in the U.S. (in fact, they send their own missionaries to the United States) so that should be taken into account as well. Interestingly, Rabbi leaves out the role of religious organizations in impoverished urban areas within the United States. This is where the lack of diversity on both sides of the debate becomes significant. If you spend much time in white, middle-upper class suburban areas or college towns - particularly in spaces dominated by universities - you may be unaware of the importance of religious organizations in the lives of the urban poor. In fact, to go from the former to the latter is jarring. And I say this based on some personal experience. In urban areas, religious organizations often fill in the gaps that are left by the state's inadequate "social safety net," providing services and resources that are denied to these "dispensable" citizens. NOW, that being said, I return to my original sentiment that the question being debated is ridiculous, and point out that, in some hypothetical universe without religion, some other sort of institution might exist to fill in those gaps and provide those services (though I hesitate to say even that because the hypothetical is not meaningful). I would also like to point out that many of the "problems" that religion may or may not be solving were caused by capitalism, so maybe we should be arguing whether the world would be better off without capitalism.
Point 2: according to studies, religious Americans give more to charity, volunteer more, participate in civic processes more, attend more meetings, are more likely to vote (the Religious Right?), less likely to drink (are we excluding Irish Catholics?), divorce (are we excluding Anglicans?), do drugs, they're much more helpful in their communities.  If you want to measure altruism and empathy (I don't; I think that's a stupid idea), the best measure is not age, gender, income, education, it's whether you're involved in a religious community. Religion is a system that encourages goodness, which is why when a religious person does something wrong, people get particularly upset. Many people of all beliefs and no belief do good in this world, but religion is an organized system that makes people better and seeks to do good in the world. The world without it would be a poorer, sadder, crueler place.
I do not know how to respond to this point, except by saying that I don't buy into these studies. I think anyone's personal experience can contradict the claim that there is any correlation between personal habits (drinking, divorcing, voting) and religion. And any systematic attempts by religious groups to encourage voting have had deleterious consequences (the Religious Right, AIPAC, etc.) Also, I would argue that organized transmission of moral frameworks occur outside of religious contexts. But above all else, as I said before: religion does not make people bad and it does not make people good. The End.

Darwin Jr:  Religion makes two big claims: God really exists and religion makes us behave better. But does religion really make us behave better? (I don't think this is the question you are supposed to be answering...) To partially answer that question, I will quote a verse from the Bible that says something awful.  Quote, quote quote.  Far from making us behave better, religion often complicates and distorts morality. Everyone wants food, water, shelter, love, and for their children to grow up happy and in a peaceful world. Because of these common desires, war should be unthinkable. Religion, however, makes everyone an infidel to someone. 
So, point number one is, religion causes war. Without religion, there is no reason at all why wars might occur. I'll just let the absurdity of that argument sink in.  Actually, as a social construction, religion does not have the capacity to cause wars.  Usually religion is invoked as a justification for actions that have a political economic rationale.  See my post on the systemic nature of violence.
There are thousands of gods available and which one you believe in is an arbitrary result of birth. If my opponents were born in Afghanistan, they'd both be Muslim. (If I were not Darwin's great-great-grandson... oh wait.) How then do they know that their god exists and other gods don't or that their god is better than the other gods? Because they have been told by an authority figure, who said their god is supreme, he is invisible, we have no proof of his existence, but if you have faith, you will believe in him. They take the weakest point of the argument and make it a condition of entry so that you overlook it. This affects many aspects of life including the functioning of democracy and the understanding of science, both of which demand that you insist on evidence (which is why scientific journals are open to the general public so that they may examine the evidence themselves), question everything (even global warming?), and take nothing on faith from anyone.
I have already written at length about how the ideological descriptions of science and democracy bear little resemblance to real practices.  Thus, it is NOT true that science always insists on evidence for every assumption (in fact, many assumptions go undetected.. like, that testosterone must cause aggression, because that is how males are by nature), that the peer review process and accessibility of scientific documents allow for adequate scrutiny, and that people are encouraged, in the spirit of science, to not take on faith the claims of experts. In fact, particularly in the debate about global warming, we are told:  "It's science!  You have to believe it!"  I am not trying to argue against global warming here, of course, merely pointing out some hypocrisy, in which "science" and "experts" demand the same faith from the masses as religious authorities. Same goes for "democracy." The whole American electoral process was based on the presumption that the mass of the American public was too stupid to be fully entrusted with the power to vote without some oversight.
A lot of Americans don't believe in evolution. Creationists are ignorant but passionate. Faith over reason. Antipathy towards science slows the progress of stem cell research, harms women's health, and contributes to skepticism about global warming.
So, about global warming. If I'm not mistaken, isn't it corporations who push the skepticism about global warming, because they want to continue to pollute with impunity? But back to the main argument, which is, partially, that when you hinder science you harm the world (see post addressing this  claim). It also presupposes that religion is inherently and necessarily opposed to science. This cannot be the case because religion does not have a single essence, and I can think of plenty of counter-examples. But I would also like to address Darwin's comments about evolution. If we are doing simple cost-benefit math here, I would like to point out that on evolution's score card there is eugenics (some of Darwin Jr.'s relatives founded the eugenics movement in Europe), racism, and social Darwinism.  Ideas about evolution have had horrendous social consequences. This is a perfect example of why you can't construct such simple linear equations out of complex social phenomena (science only contributes good... is never used for evil; religion only makes people bad... ).
Religion claims to provide morality, but it is divisive, homophobic, it subjugates women, and it distorts morality.
Actually, that sounds like the beginning of a great riddle... What is divisive, homophobic, subjugates women, and distorts morality?  Answer:  capitalism!  Of course, religion is not inherently any of these things (because, for the fiftieth time, it has no essence). For example, at the last gay pride parade I attended, probably close to a third of the groups in the parade were religiously affiliated.

Right Wing Crazy: The crimes of religion are miniscule compared to the crimes of atheist regimes that are greater in magnitude and duration. Fewer people were killed during the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials than throughout the history of the Soviet Union, under Mao, Kim Jung Il, and Pol Pot. They killed millions of people. Dawkins says that unlike religious people who kill in the name of religion, these dictators did not kill in the name of atheism. However, looking at the works of Marx, you can see that the atheism is not incidental, it is intrinsic to the ideology.  Marx said that religion is the opium (a drug) of the people and said that you had to get rid of religion to free people from their shackles.
Sighhhh.  Right Wing Crazy, of course, commits the same fallacies as everyone else. Just as religion does not cause violence, it is equally ridiculous to say that atheism causes violence. Especially when you are talking about the kinds of genocide and political violence invoked by Right Wing Crazy, to simply hold atheism as the cause and ignore all the many factors that would have existed regardless of the dictators' religious affiliations, that is about as nutty as saying that war would be inconceivable without religion. Oh yeah, and Marx. That was my main objective in writing my previous post - to respond to this argument. Plus, I cannot express vehemently enough the fact that the actions of these dictators did not follow from the writings of Marx!
Usually when we think of secular society, we think of Europe; but Europe is not really secular. It is the product of centuries of Jewish and Christian civilization. I will throw in some pretentious literary quotes now. 
The concept of the "secular" is also a social construction, and quite a complex one at that. The idea of the "secular" and "secularism" as a movement was born in Europe. Europe is secular in the sense that the logic of secular doctrine (sanctity of the individual and private property, e.g.) structures much of civic and social life. However, Right Wing Crazy is correct that no one completely breaks from their past; and history structures the present. Though this does NOT mean that Europe is essentially Christian (in part, because, say it with me, nothing is in its essence religious). But really, I don't understand the relevance of this point at all. What difference does it make if Europe is secular or Judeo-Christian? Perhaps because Right Wing Crazy is associating all that is good in the world with the supremacy of European culture... and therefore he has to defend it as religious? I don't know, and I don't think I want to know.
When we get rid of religion, we license terrible calamities.
Terrible calamities are unavoidable, either way.

Moderator: Why would so many people embrace religion if it is destructive to them?


Philosopher: Religion is pervasive in history and it is handed down from parents to their children, so it is a potent force in society. But if you look at the trend in the developed and advanced and educated (and by "developed and advanced, and educated" I mean "white") countries in the world since the time of the Enlightenment, you see the numbers [of religious people] are plummeting, even here in the United States of America. The trends are setting in the right direction.
First, Philosopher is wrong in his assumption that things get passed on with any fidelity over time. He also ignores the many instances of "conversion" and abrupt change throughout history. He ignores "external" (horiztonal) influences and processes of diffusion. And he ignores the fact that there have been multiple "religions" and multiple histories (but he really seems to envision a singular history, in which all people past and all non-European people present form an undifferentiated "dawn of humanity" against which European (Western, white, European) people have majestically advanced to levels of near perfection.) The claim that religion is waning is a dubious one, despite whatever studies he wants to cite (of course, Philosopher is going to restrict his statistical attention to Western - or in his terms, advanced - countries because they are the only ones that matter when it comes to understanding global trends; they are, after all, on the cutting edge of cultural evolution). In all seriousness, though, this claim has been floating around in the sociology of religion for centuries, and the world today looks nothing like the many predictions that were made based on this assumption. Now it is more of a sociological/anthropological truism that this is not the case and only causes social scientists to misunderstand and miss out on a lot of what is brewing in the world right now.


Moderator: Pro-religion side, what of this point that religion gets kids early and then it's set? (oh whyyyy is this relevant?)


Right Wing Crazy: We also get kids early with habits like brushing their teeth, learning the mathematical tables.   
Seriously??? These were the best examples you were able to come up with? I mean, if it were me, I would have said that parents impress their political views on kids at an early age; they inculcate racial prejudice; they transmit gender norms; they ingrain the values of democracy and science before children learn to reason. That is why a lot of people don't critically think about what any of these latter things really mean in practice. It is a fact of social life that socialization occurs at a young age, and this involves all important cultural values and principles. But my task is to ridicule Right Wing Crazy, not to form his arguments for him.
We all learn our ethical values from our parents. Now a personal story about how I went to Darmouth and my beliefs were battered. Saying that we learned it from our parents misses the thrust of why billions of people continue to do it into old age. Religion delivers practical benefits. It gives us the hope of life after death. That is a practical benefit.
No. Clearly you do not know what a practical benefit is. A practical benefit of religion would be "It helps me get elected to public office because most Americans only vote for Christians."
Second, religion is a mode of transmission of morality. No one teaches their kids morality through Heidegger or Nietzsche.
Are there no better examples of secular morality? I shudder to think of what the world would be like if children were taught morality through Nietzsche. A world overrun by self-absorbed, oddly reactionary hipsters.... NOOOO!!
Darwin Jr.: People in other cultures become addicted to their religions. (I will leave alone the racist implications here) Even if you could remove all of the bad things about religion and keep all of the good things about religion, none of which can't be performed by people who don't believe in God, you end up with someone like Father Christmas. 
Well, I guess that would depend on what you define as the "good" parts and the "bad" parts.  (For some people, the hope of life after death is one of the "good" parts, and I don't know that Santa Claus provides that; in addition to the fact that his charity work is somewhat lacking... one night a year, one present?)  On the whole this is quite an arbitrary conclusion to come to.
Would you want to find out that the president of the United States was a devout believer in Father Christmas?
Well, if a lot of adults in America believed in Father Christmas, and everyone who had ever been president of the U.S. believed in Father Christmas, then I would not find it so shocking, no.


Rabbi: It's interesting that the side that is actually providing evidence of any kind is this side. The idea that religious people are only religious because of a psychological deficit while non-religious people have reasoned their way out, not only slights the idea that religious people are capable of thought, but also railroads you into condemning it without looking at all of the histories and ideas. Perhaps your argument is not as sound as you think it is.
The cute little rabbi is getting feisty!


Philosopher or Darwin Jr.: Most people who escape religion do it because they look at the facts. Children don't know what race and ethnicity they all are. We have to work very hard to divide them.
Okay. I am really having a lot of trouble figuring this out. How do the first two statements have anything to do with each other?  Is Indistinguishable British Accent implying that religion causes racism? Interestingly enough, science was actually at the forefront of the construction of the concept of "race." Religious doctrine may have helped, but it was also religious people who opposed slavery and racism at a time when scientists were still calculating how much smaller black skulls were. Which is only to say, once again, that you can't make such ridiculous attributions.


Right Wing Crazy: Darwin did not become an atheist because he discovered evolution; it wasn't facts. It was when his daughter died, he said that if there were a hell he would know a lot of people who were in it, and he could not bear that thought. You, Darwin Jr., talked in an interview about nuns who beat you and stuck their hands down your pants. In many cases we are not dealing with facts, but "wounded theism." Many times when we hear the word "atheism" we are dealing with people who are angry with God, or the representatives of God.
And Right Wing Crazy turns the tables on his opponents by using the psychological fallacy against them.  Fallacy nonetheless.  Oh, by the way, have you noticed that this has become a discussion of the rationality of belief now?  I think the momentum occurred somewhere around the time Santa Claus was mentioned.


Moderator: Darwin Jr., are you angry with God?


Darwin Jr.: How can you be angry with someone who doesn't exist? Darwin's atheism didn't come solely from the fact that his daughter died. It was a very slow process of seeing how the theory of evolution was in conflict with the Bible. 
It seems that Darwin Jr. does not know much of his own family history. Darwin never considered himself an atheist (more agnostic); and from what I've read/been told, it was not so much evolution which caused him to question his beliefs (religiously framed ideas of evolution had existed prior to Darwin, and Darwin himself thought it was great evidence of design), but more moral quandaries like the existence of suffering. Regardless, I don't think it is possible to isolate a single cause for Darwin's transformations in belief. And more importantly, why are we discussing this??
Let's give the religious people that at some point in history religion was helpful (oh you're so kind), but the texts upon which they are based are archaic, absurd, cruel, and open to interpretation.
No! I will not stand for texts that are open to interpretation!
There are better ways of conducting yourself in this life. I don't buy the idea that we've inherited it from Christianity because if you look at the evolutionary world, empathy, cooperation, compassion, clearly existed before God decided to intervene.
What was the question we were debating again?


Moderator: Rabbi, you are not a literalist, would you like to respond?


Rabbi: I am not a literalist. But what I find interesting is the leap that Darwin Jr. is making. He says that these texts have cruel things, there are better ways to behave. 
And the leap is.... where?
But we are not asking if the world would be better off if we rewrote the Bible, but would the world be better off without the influence religion has on religious people. To Philosopher: I disagree that people are fundamentally good. You've clearly never visited a playground. Children have to be socialized to good, and that is hard work, and that is what religious communities do.
And clearly, without religion, everyone would behave like children on a playground, all the time.  Actually.... that already happens. WITH religion.


Darwin Jr.: This is the viewpoint of a rabbi who does work in an affluent community in Los Angeles. Both of my opponents are sophisticated. The people who I've talked to in Pennsylvania who are creationists and fundamentalists ignore their sophistication. Most of the world is fundamentalist and takes a barbaric view of many of the texts.
Ouch! So, we've made brief passes at sexism, developed a passionate relationship with Eurocentrism (aka racism), and now we're starting to eye classism? Damn those unsophisticated white trash Pennsylvanians!


Moderator: If there were no religion what would be happening in Pennsylvania?


Darwin Jr.: The harm is enormous. Half of the growth in the American economy since WW2 has been from science and technology. This anti-scientism is gradually eroding America's ability to produce enterprising, educated citizens.
HA! HA! Yes, American economic growth had nothing to do with the construction of exploitative global relationships following European imperial decline, and the current economic contraction has nothing to do with the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Science could have brought us to such great heights, but religion ruins everything. Should I point out that Henry Ford and many other American entrepreneurs were devoutly religious? What I think this debate is really missing is a historian.


Moderator: Does religious thinking limit science?


Right Wing Crazy: If you were to make a list of the greatest scientists of all time, the majority were religious. 
True; except that "religious" would be an anachronism if you go back a couple hundred years.
We are indicting all of the world's religions based on the 1% minority of religious rednecks. (We are the 99%!!) Nothing could be more shameful than to imply that Athens and Jerusalem, that have shaped our economy, philosophy, checks and balances....


Philosopher: You are the most tremendous rewriter of history I have ever come across in my life. When Christianity became dominant in Europe (3rd-4th century AD), they found that their ethics were very thin and got their extra ethics from Greek philosophy. Most of European culture is deeply rooted in classical antiquity. Christianity was an oriental religion the erupted into Europe and derailed it for over a thousand years. People couldn't build a dome like before because they lost knowledge of simple engineering.  Religion did to the history of our culture exactly what Darwin Jr. says it's doing again.
Oh pot calling the "tremendous rewriter of history" black..  Where do I begin (and where should I END?)?  I find it interesting that Philosopher characterizes Christianity as an "oriental" eruption into Europe, implying: 1) Europe has always had distinct geographical, ethnic, cultural borders... The Roman Empire certainly never encompassed the "oriental" territory where Christianity was born); 2) Anything coming from outside those borders is necessarily disruptive to European progress; 3) Western Europe has a distinct essence (and I won't say it's superior to the "orient," but...) and 4) that essence contains absolutely no elements the originated outside of "Europe" however conceived.  The tryst with classism was fun, but you know it's racism who I truly love. Perhaps the most hilariously outrageous part of Philosopher's argument is his claim that religion singlehandedly diminished technical knowledge to the point that Europeans didn't even know how to construct a dome anymore. First, it is not even clear if he is talking about a contiguous population here, as the teleological history of European progress often weaves disparate groups of people into a single historical narrative. Of course, Philosopher seems to think the context of the barbarian migrations/invasions and the fall of the Roman Empire are insignificant to these developments (or, more aptly, regressions). And then there is that whole sticky business that many of the great "achievements" that Philosopher would laud occurred after the Christianization of Europe, but before its secularization. I think Philosopher is proving that if you are really passionate about a belief, you will say any number of absurd things to defend it.


Rabbi: Long before Christianity, Judaism enunciated all of the ideals you say did not come from Christianity. ...
Oh for the love of...

---Now I'm getting bored so I'll skip to the last interesting part-------


Audience question: How are the harms of religion different from those of nationalism and racism?


Philosopher or Darwin Jr.: I think the difference is that even the mistakes of the people who are acting out of nonreligious motives are mistakes based on reason, and most of the horrors of religion are mistakes based on superstitious fear and delusion.
Next time someone tells me I'm racist, I'll explain that my racism is based on reason.

Science and Progress

I wanted to make one further digression about science (and it seems that I have spent quite a bit of my blogging energy critiquing science; only because I like to attack sacred cows).

It appears that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to envisioning a world beyond capitalism (even valorizing some aspects of the world before capitalsm) is the notion that, if the social division of labor were significantly altered (such that academia and research, in its current state, would not be possible), all scientific advancement would cease and the world would therefore come to an end.

First, I would challenge anyone making that claim to consider all the ways in which the ideology of progress is permeating the assumptions they are making.

But more substantively, I think it is necessary to examine the notion of the "scientific advancement" itself. From an epistemological stand point, there is the question of whether or not our knowledge is increasing, and our worldviews more closely approximateing "the truth." (In these types of contexts, the collect pronoun "our" is used, despite the fact that the knowledge and worldviews in question are anything but shared, because scientists have the special privilege of representing the universalizing goals of humankind.) There is also the practical matter of the material gains (namely technology) which science bestows upon society (once again, the small fraction of the world's population who actually has access to these gains are the only people who matter).

First, the epistemological. Science is underpinned by positivist ideology (or "philosophy" if you prefer... yes, I'm being a dick). This view holds that humans have direct, unmediated access to reality, and to whatever extent that access is mediated, proper scientific procedure can circumvent the impediment. Accordingly, a positivist uses the term "knowledge" to refer to an entity that: 1) corresponds exactly to reality; 2) is discrete and quantifiable; 3) can be possessed as an object; 4) exists somewhere "out there" in the world, waiting to be discovered by humans; and 5) is not altered by human contact. Thus, the view that knowledge is "increasing."

Positivist thought rests on shakey ground. For one thing, it can be quite forcefully argued that human access to reality IS mediated. Reality is far too complex for humans to comprehend in any meaningful way without filtering and organization. For example, people are bombarded with stimuli every second of the day; in order to function at all, most of these stimuli must be completely ignored. In other words, perception is highly selective. Prior experience and mental categories often determine what people pay attention to. [Side note: this is one reason why it is so difficult for people to detect differences among unfamiliar things. For example, individuals of other races ("all ___ people look alike"), or pieces of music within an unfamiliar genre (for people who don't often listen to classical music, all classical music sounds alike!). Over time, people learn to pay attention to meaningful differences, and downplay characteristics that do not have semantic value (like the characteristics common to an "ethnic group" or genre of music).]

Countless observations of scientific practice - primarily from "science studies" disciplines like sociology of science, philosophy of science, and history of science - confirm the "selective perception" inherent in scientific research. This extends to what questions are asked, how they are asked, what aspects of a phenomenon are deemed important (even what gets defined as a "phenomenon"!), and the perceptual/conceptual limits imposed by the tools that are used to answer these questions. Furthermore, scientific thought and all of its conceptual repertoire is saturated with cultural, social, political assumptions, often to which the scientist is more or less blind. (I could list plenty of examples, but for now I will just mention the practice, common among biologists, of using the male as the "norm." I have given other examples in previous posts, and am sure I will provide more in the future.)

If human perception and cognition are mediated, processed, organized, then it would follow that what positivists view as a gradual collection of bits of knowledge, could also be seen as an elaboration of a particular framework for interpretation, proceeding according to its own logic and principles, to fit new or unaccounted for experience. This is not to take a "relativist" stance, as the interpretive framework would have some connection to a reality that does exist, and the ensuing elaboration would likewise have to be corroborated to a certain degree by experience. It merely rejects a total correspondence between any framework and reality. And it does call into the question the notion of an "increase in knowledge," as "increase" is reformulated as "elaboration."

What, then, of the idea that "we" (however that is defined) are more closely approaching "the truth" (however that is defined)? I think the issue was best approached by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Throughout the book, Kuhn argues that the progression of scientific paradigms (or, conceptual models, including language, modes of practice, and use of technology) does not follow any evident pattern or logic. In that sense, it is not a true "progression" but more of a sucession. In many cases, scientific communities have reverted back to previous paradigms. Kuhn insists that while the paradigms themselves do not get "better" in any sense, or do not more closely resemble reality, the practical use to which these paradigms are put, including prediction, does become more effective.

I would argue that this is partly a result of the sheer amount of money and resources (human and material) that have been increasingly poured into science. Just to exaggerate the situation beyond probability in the interest of highlighting a truth: if you assemble a whole bunch of people for the purpose of building mouse traps, and give them limitless time and materials, they will probably keep devising better mouse traps, even if only at the most basic level of trial and error, regardless of whether they understand any principles of mouse-trapery.

But there is another aspect of the technical efficacy of science, and that is capitalism. Capitalist relations allocate money and other resources, and capitalist interests, as well as the ideologies on which they depend, provide, for the most part, the "problems" that need to be solved along with the financial impetus to solve them. Because, in the end, as much as scientists might protest, the enterprise of science is oriented toward capitalist ends, and those ends require, in part, the profileration of technology, modes of efficiency, and certain types of technical/managerial know-how, that is what science, in fact, produces. Science bows to the demands of capitalism.

So, then, back to the original problem. If scientific research ceased to function as it does today, would life be worthless? We would not be parting ways with "The Truth" (and, as should be quite obvious from history, it is possible to live a more subsistence-focused lifestyle and still be able to contemplate the world and elaborate interpretive frameworks; this pursuit does not require money, institutions, or special tools.) We would, it is true, inhibit (but not prevent, which should also be clear from history) the production of technology. Once again, though, I pose the questions: Is it only technology which makes life worthwhile or even enjoyable? And are the benefits of technology really worth it, when they are circumscribed within a tiny segment of the human population and entail the suffering and poverty of all the rest (see previous post)?

These questions should, at the very least, be cause for reflection, if nothing else.

Individualism: Cultural Trait or Political Economic Necessity?

Much has been made out of concept of Western Individualism versus Eastern Collectivism. Usually, these are framed as existential cultural traits: there is something particularly European about individualism, and something particularly …. non-European…. about collectivism. European individualism is used as an explanation for their economic and political “achievements” (colonization included).

Of course, our notions of “culture” were forged in a colonial context, and any scheme that pits people of European ancestry (people of color in the United States are generally deemed “collectivist” as well) against everyone else, as an undifferentiated whole, should be suspect. As a general rule of thumb, any binary which places people of European ancestry on one side of a divide and everyone else on the other is a product of the discourses that constitute (actively and passively) “modernity.”

What the culturalist perspective construes as a personality trait or an attitude, actually derives from legal practices that were specifically developed to support capitalist relations of production. Thus, it was an intentional arrangement, subject to very specific power interests. While other relations of production are premised on the products of labor (and surpluses may be appropriated from collectives, including families), under capitalism, labor itself is commoditized and collective action is coordinated from the “top” (all other lateral relationships, like unionization, are discouraged). Furthermore, private ownership of land and other means of production is necessary to ensure the limits to competition that capitalism requires. In this environment, a legal system that privileges private ownership and contracts between individual agents is indispensible. The “individual” is the linchpin that holds it all together.

It is in a capitalist’s interest that people are not able to satisfy their needs on their own. Instead, people are reliant upon an endless number of commodities. They are separated (“alienated” in Marx’s terms) from the products of their own labor, and must procure their needs from unknown (in terms of the human labor) sources. Furthermore, as the production process becomes finely segmented, to the extent that each laborer is only involved with a fraction of the overall process, collective action toward a common goal is limited. In essence, under capitalism, the productive process consists of relationships that are more structural than interactional. People inhabit roles in which, for the sake of efficiency, they are interchangeable with others. The “individual” as a legal, political, and economic entity is a function of the role-based nature of capitalist relations of production. One might say that the “individual” is one of the “technologies” (and don’t humans often function as machines?) created by capitalism.

Still, one must be careful not to overstate the divide between individualism and collectivism. One characteristic of the project of “modernity” along with its concomitant ideology of progress, is the tendency to turn products of capitalism (in themselves neutral, potentially even harmful) into evidence of progress, and then to place them on one side of a great modern-premodern divide, where they become inextricably associated with the inhabitants of the “modern” side of the chasm: white, middle/upper class, straight males. (Notice how even Western women are supposed to be more collectivist in nature, while the image of the rugged individualist is invariably male.)

Since a certain sort of codified individualism was created by the forces of capitalism, individualism is hence seen as inherently European, as well as a mark of European progress.

Does Evolution Explain Everything?

Because of the relation of evolutionary theory to the Ideology of Progress (see also last few posts), it has become the dominant paradigm of analysis within the human sciences. Virtually every aspect of human life - physical, mental, and social - is explained within an evolutionary framework. Take, for example, this recent headline.

Evolution is so hegemonic to modern thought that even the most respected scientists hardly bat an eye when these studies employ contradictory or nonsensical logic. Further proof that science is a human activity that proceeds according to dominant ideological frameworks that are deeply embedded in the social order.

Evolutionary studies are quite formulaic:

1. Take any "trait."
2. Assume that it was adaptive at "the time" when humans evolved.
3. Come up with a reason why it would be adaptive.
4. Voila. Said "trait" is hardwired into our physical makeup via evolution.

Here are some of the many reasons why the formula contradicts the espoused principles of Darwinian evolution and defies logical thought (I will respond specifically according to each numbered step above):

1. The objects that are defined as "traits" are heterogenous in nature: some are simple, discrete physical properties (i.e. attached earlobes); some are slightly more complex, non-discrete, and environmentally-influenced physical characteristics (height); some are abstract concepts that generalize variable behavior (personality); and some are social constructs (race). The problem is, many of the "traits" to which are attributed evolutionary causes do not exist as discrete, bounded objects (see post on disease), have more social reality than physical reality, and, even if one assumed they were coded in the genes (a dubious assumptions based on the previous point), would be governed by so many different genes interacting in complex ways with each other and the environment, that it would be impossible for natural selection to act upon them in any coherent way in such a short span of time (the period of human existence is relatively short).

2. There are two fundamental problems in assuming that an existent trait must have been adaptive at the time humans evolved. First, just because something exists does not imply that it is adaptive. Genes and traits are able to survive among a population if they do not affect individual's reproductive capacities in any way (after all, why would they "die out" if the individuals who possess them are still able to pass them on to their offspring?). An evolutionary perspective that considers adaptability independently of reproductive capacity is more Lamarckian than Darwinian.

Second, "the time" that humans evolved does not exist. Evolution, at least as it is conceived by Darwin, is a continuous process. There was not one single moment or discrete period of time at which humans suddenly appeared.** And humans should not have stopped evolving. There is no reason to assume that the adaptability of any given trait is less pertitent to conditions today or in the recent past than a million years ago. There was nothing magical about that period of time.

**There is some debate about how exactly homo sapiens should be categorized (for example, should Neaderthals be considered a sub-species?) and from which population they emerged. Regardless, whether homo sapiens evolved from a local African population, or from the global population of predecessors, this would have occured via a gradual process of speciation (a gradual accumulation of differences, without a distinct "dividing line.") A species is typically defined as a population that can interbreed. Thus, if the population remains intact, speciation may not occur so much like forking branches on a tree, but result from a gradual accumulation of changes that would prevent an earlier member of the population from breeding with a current member, if this were possible. However, any line of demarkation that is made is purely arbitrary.

3. It is possible to come up with some reason why nearly any trait could have possibility been adapative at a given point of time. It is kind of like playing 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. It is also circular logic. There is virtually no way to verify any of these claims. What passes for rigorous scientific inquiry are essentially unverifiable, sophmoric manipulations of thought.

4. While the first three steps contradict principles of evolution ostensibly espoused by the scientists who manufacture these types of studies, it poses no conflict with Darwinian theory to suppose that any trait is hardwired into humans' genetic makeup. In this case, it is more a suspension of generic scientific protocol that is at play (much like step 3). Many of the phenomena studied by evolutionary scientists are much too complex and socially determined to ever ascertain which components are genetic. The fact that one is able to come up with some hypothetical reason why a trait could be adaptive does not constitute proof of its genetic basis. Furthermore, the types of tests that are devised to assess whether a phenomenon is physically determined are undertaken by selecting precisely those aspects that are physically manifested in order to define the trait - thus using what one is aiming to prove as the basis of the proof itself. That is why scientists so often find exactly what they sought to find in the first place.

Take the previous example (linked to in the first paragraph) about gossip.

-First, the concept of "gossip" itself is a social construction. It is culturally-specific, not universal. In this study, the word "gossip" is used to label the phenomenon: unflattering information about another person. In common parlance, however, the word "gossip" often coveys something about the mode of tranmission as well: for example, news reports about Congressman Weiner sending inappropriate pictures and text messages are not considered "gossip," while a water-cooler conversation about a coworker's rumored affair is. This study, then, is stripping the word "gossip" of much of its rich social meaning. Furthermore, even in its more narrowly defined form, as used by the study, the concept still contains some ambiguities. For what purpose is the information being shared? What is the relationship between giver and receiver and the person who is its subject? Sharing information about a person that neither giver nor receiver have actually met, just because it is entertaining (a pop star was flashing her crotch), is different than sharing information about a person with whom the receiver is intimately familiar, for the purpose of avoiding some undesired event (your girlfriend cheated on all of her past boyfriends).

-Second, these researchers fallaciously equate the length at which a person looked at a picture with "how they feel" and "how they see" the person. The internal states of the participants are not being measured. All the researchers know is how long the participants looked at various pictures. It is wrong to infer interal states based on that information alone.

-Third, the fact that the participants happened to spend more time looking at the pictures to whom negative information had been attributed does not prove that anything in particular is "hardwired" into the brain. Perhaps the negative information happened to be more interesting. This appears to be the case from the examples given in the article: "threw a chair at his classmate" versus "passed a man on the street." What would have been the outcome if "had a bad day" was pitted against "won the Nobel Peace prize"? Moreover, did the researchers control for gender, race, or other physical features of the pictures? What kinds of people took part in this study, and under what conditions? One should be very careful about making grand pronouncements about the innate characteristics of all human beings based on such flimsy and potentially socially determined evidence.

-Fourth, the fact (if true) that negative information about other individuals catches people's attention today does not mean that such an interest need to have been adaptive in the past, or is adaptive now. It is obvious that gossip can have beneficial as well as harmful effects, often simultaneously. Why would the harmful effects have been absent thousands of years ago?

-Fifth, assuming gossip actually were some discrete, non-culturally-constructed entity, how many genes would it take to code for such a complex phenomenon?  Could it have such a profound effect on reproductive capacity that this whole constellation of genes was affected within the span of ... what... (how long do they consider "the time that humans evolved"?) ... say, a million years?

The moral of the story is: scientists are people. They are no more intelligent than, and just as fallible as, everyone else. View scientific research with caution.

View scientific research with caution because it is not produced by "neutral" minds, and neither are its effects socially insignificant. For instance, when a "trait" is explained within an evolutionary framework, this serves to naturalize the phenomenon and erase its social determinations. The ultimate result is that social processes and the artifacts of social action are pushed beyond the realm of criticism and challenge.