This particular myth is emblematic of the captialist-driven desire to find simple causes for complex conditions.
The human body is constantly converting one type of substance into another, and the foods that you eat by no means escape this process.
Yet, for a long time it was a medical truism that excess fat on the body was caused by a diet with a high composition of fat. If you have too much fat inside of you, you must have put that fat there, directly, via fat consumption. Nevermind that carbohydrates can easily be converted into fat...
A more reasonable, and thus still widely accepted, logic is premised on a simple calculus of "calories in, calories out." Thus, you gain weight when you eat more calories than you burn, and lose weight when you eat less. Anyone who has had some fluctuation in their weight, diet, and exercise regimen can tell you that, unfortunately, it does not work like that. It is a lot easier to put weight on than it is to get it off, and these changes never follow the expectations derived from calorie counting. This suggests the ability of the body to actively respond to changing conditions and adapt its internal processes to conserve energy reserves.
Another still widespread example of "you are what you eat" logic is the recommendation that high cholesterol be treated by reducing cholesterol in the diet. However, a vast majority of cholesterol is produced by the body itself, and will thus remain unaffected by diet.
What this simple logic ultimately amounts to is an attempt to attribute undesirable conditions to "bad" inputs - and, thus, personal responsibility. Let us not forget, as well, that with food as the fulcrum of many public health endeavors, it is possible for regulatory organizations to use this concern as leverage to subsidize and promote particular agricultural industries. For example, the low-fat craze and the food pyramid built thereupon were a major boon for corn, soy, and grain industries, which have been heavily subsidized both in the U.S. and abroad. This demonstrates, once again, the way in which the trope of personal responsibility and governmental power work in tandem.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Capitalism and Health
I decided that I wanted to devote a number of posts to the subject of health. The way we view and act upon the human body is a concern of central political, economic, and social importance, as well as instrumental to the way in which we perceive ourselves as individuals. To start, I will provide an overview of the capitalist approach to health that has become so pervasive and naturalized.
This approach entails the following assumptions:
1. It is the "normal" state of affairs to be "healthy." Thus, ill health and other physical maladies are a form of deviance.
2. Deviance comes in discrete packages: "disease," "infection," "syndrome," and "disability" are the most common. Each form of deviance, in turn, has a discrete and identifiable cause. Some causes represent inherent abnormality (genetic defects); some represent outside threats (bateria, viruses, fungi) which can be managed and prevented; and some derive from behavior. Furthermore, to the extent to which susceptibility to "outside threats" is determined by "inherent abnormality" and behavioral causes, its role is more that of a secondary cause.
3. Health is managed at the level of the individual, in terms of individual defects and behaviors. In this way, each individual often becomes directly culpible for his or her own health, and public health strategies focus on "education" and the management of behavior (encourage kids to exercise, regulate salt content, tax cigarettes, etc.). An ideology of "personal responsibility" and the employment of governmental power relations (two non-contradictory components of capitalism: both seeking to effect change at the level of the individual) are the name of the game.
4. Understanding of causation is extremely linear and material. A one-to-one correspondance is often sought between illness and personal hygiene, eating habits, level of physical activity, and engagement in "risky" (i.e. non-socially sanctioned) behaviors.
5. With discrete, material causes of health-related deviance, the restoration of "normality" may be pursued by equally discrete, material means: thus, the domain of health care is easily penetrated and transformed by capitalism and its tendency toward commodification of every possible aspect of life.
The following are some examples of the "simple math" that has characterized our approach to health:
-People with heart disease are often fat. Therefore, being fat must cause heart disease. Furthermore, you must be fat because you eat fat. Consequently, a low-fat diet will prevent heart disease. Oh, how convenient, now we have created a market for I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!
-If you have chest congestion and fatigue, you probably have a respiratory infection. Infections are caused by outside agents. Outside agents must be killed by antibiotics (because the human body is not designed to deal with bacteria and viruses on its own). Oh, how nice for the pharmaceutical companies, people are willing to pay lots of money for drugs! (Oh, too bad for the poor people who actually need them but can't afford them...)
-Syphillis is a sexually-transmitted infection. Since syphillis is a "deviant" condition, it must result from deviant sexual behavior. Therefore, only people who deserve to get syphillis get syphillis. Hey, why not use poor black people with syphillis for the unnecessary medical research that supports our gainful employment? If we treated them, we would only be shielding them from the consequences of their actions anyway.
-Everyone's body is, ideally, exactly the same. If someone's body deviates from this ideal, it must be their fault. They should live in constant guilt and shame. They also should spend an inordinate amount of time, energy and money trying to become closer to the ideal. Since practically nobody is "normal," what a large market that creates for diet products, exercise equipment, fancy scales, and magazines with helpful tips on how to "get the abs of your dreams" (or, just for Schadenfreude, investigations into which celebrities have gained 2 pounds)!
This approach entails the following assumptions:
1. It is the "normal" state of affairs to be "healthy." Thus, ill health and other physical maladies are a form of deviance.
2. Deviance comes in discrete packages: "disease," "infection," "syndrome," and "disability" are the most common. Each form of deviance, in turn, has a discrete and identifiable cause. Some causes represent inherent abnormality (genetic defects); some represent outside threats (bateria, viruses, fungi) which can be managed and prevented; and some derive from behavior. Furthermore, to the extent to which susceptibility to "outside threats" is determined by "inherent abnormality" and behavioral causes, its role is more that of a secondary cause.
3. Health is managed at the level of the individual, in terms of individual defects and behaviors. In this way, each individual often becomes directly culpible for his or her own health, and public health strategies focus on "education" and the management of behavior (encourage kids to exercise, regulate salt content, tax cigarettes, etc.). An ideology of "personal responsibility" and the employment of governmental power relations (two non-contradictory components of capitalism: both seeking to effect change at the level of the individual) are the name of the game.
4. Understanding of causation is extremely linear and material. A one-to-one correspondance is often sought between illness and personal hygiene, eating habits, level of physical activity, and engagement in "risky" (i.e. non-socially sanctioned) behaviors.
5. With discrete, material causes of health-related deviance, the restoration of "normality" may be pursued by equally discrete, material means: thus, the domain of health care is easily penetrated and transformed by capitalism and its tendency toward commodification of every possible aspect of life.
The following are some examples of the "simple math" that has characterized our approach to health:
-People with heart disease are often fat. Therefore, being fat must cause heart disease. Furthermore, you must be fat because you eat fat. Consequently, a low-fat diet will prevent heart disease. Oh, how convenient, now we have created a market for I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!
-If you have chest congestion and fatigue, you probably have a respiratory infection. Infections are caused by outside agents. Outside agents must be killed by antibiotics (because the human body is not designed to deal with bacteria and viruses on its own). Oh, how nice for the pharmaceutical companies, people are willing to pay lots of money for drugs! (Oh, too bad for the poor people who actually need them but can't afford them...)
-Syphillis is a sexually-transmitted infection. Since syphillis is a "deviant" condition, it must result from deviant sexual behavior. Therefore, only people who deserve to get syphillis get syphillis. Hey, why not use poor black people with syphillis for the unnecessary medical research that supports our gainful employment? If we treated them, we would only be shielding them from the consequences of their actions anyway.
-Everyone's body is, ideally, exactly the same. If someone's body deviates from this ideal, it must be their fault. They should live in constant guilt and shame. They also should spend an inordinate amount of time, energy and money trying to become closer to the ideal. Since practically nobody is "normal," what a large market that creates for diet products, exercise equipment, fancy scales, and magazines with helpful tips on how to "get the abs of your dreams" (or, just for Schadenfreude, investigations into which celebrities have gained 2 pounds)!
Friday, April 8, 2011
Understanding Western Intervention In Libya
I would actually like to address the MENA unrest once more before moving on (a series on health is to follow!). I just read a blurb by one of my favorite neo-Marxist theorists, Immanuel Walllerstein, which seeks to make some sense out of the U.S./NATO decision to intervene in the Libyan conflict. His premise: that it was more a matter of subduing the Arab resistance movement and maintaining the geopolitical structure of the region than about humanitarian aid or oil. Read "The Great Libyan Distraction."
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Book Review: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded
The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-profit Industrial Complex is a must-read! In sum, it outlines the way in which progressive social justice movements have become organized along capitalist lines in such a way that their projects serve to uphold the status quo rather than foment real social change. It is a great example of the way in which non-profits compose a part of the physical infrastructure that enables the illusion of "democracy."
The essays in this volume detail the relationship between non-profit organizations and their sources of funding, including the U.S. government and foundations. The latter are examined in critical detail and exposed as a sort of tax shelter, in which large corporations and wealthy individuals can store their income without paying taxes, and only need to pay out a small fraction each year on actual projects. The vast majority of foundations' wealth is unspent and untaxed. Furthermore, with the leverage over the work of non-profits that the grant process affords to these foundations, they have been able to redirect and dilute movements for radical social change.
While the book reveals the extent of capitalists' abilities to manage and control society for their own benefit, penetrating even forces of resistance, many of the essays also provide guidance and positive solutions to circumvent the non-profit-industrial complex. At times, the essays may also seem slightly repetative and redundant, yet it is overall a very worthwhile read!
The essays in this volume detail the relationship between non-profit organizations and their sources of funding, including the U.S. government and foundations. The latter are examined in critical detail and exposed as a sort of tax shelter, in which large corporations and wealthy individuals can store their income without paying taxes, and only need to pay out a small fraction each year on actual projects. The vast majority of foundations' wealth is unspent and untaxed. Furthermore, with the leverage over the work of non-profits that the grant process affords to these foundations, they have been able to redirect and dilute movements for radical social change.
While the book reveals the extent of capitalists' abilities to manage and control society for their own benefit, penetrating even forces of resistance, many of the essays also provide guidance and positive solutions to circumvent the non-profit-industrial complex. At times, the essays may also seem slightly repetative and redundant, yet it is overall a very worthwhile read!
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Dictatorship and the USSR
Before leaving the topic of dictatorship, I want to address one more issue that has nothing to do with the MENA protests. For, it is often claimed that the events following the Russian Revolution of 1917 demonstrate a truth about human nature that implies the necessary failure of any attempts to create an egalitarian society.
The argument goes something like this: It is human nature for people to try to gain power and take advantage of others. Therefore, attempts at creating an egalitarian society will necessarily end with power being concentrated into the hands of a few people. It should come as no surprise that the Russian Revolution resulted in a repressive dictatorship. (In fact, I am basically outlining the entire premise of Animal Farm, as I remember it.)
But it is always a mistake to haphazardly attribute to "human nature" (a muddled concept anyway) circumstances that have emerged out of specific historical processes and material conditions.
From an anthropological standpoint, the above argument is unfounded. In fact, there is a much better explanation for why the Russian Revolution produced a dictatorship.
At the time of the Revolution:
-Most of the country suffered from poverty and famine
-Infrastructure had been ravaged by World War 1
-Adequate ideological infrastructure had not been developed to integrate the very diverse regions of the Empire and to legitimate the rule of the Tsar.
Thus, amid conditions of poverty and an infrastructural void, the state had to rely on repression and violence to consolidate its rule, just as it does in other countries facing the same internal conditions.
When the conditions that have produced dictatorships all over the world, time and again, were present in Revolutionary Russia, then one must assume that it was these conditions that predisposed the USSR to dictatorship.
So, neither did the U.S. possess an economic organization that was diametrically opposed to the USSR, nor did it possess such a political organization. The difference between the U.S. and the USSR was always a difference in wealth and not in ideology.
The argument goes something like this: It is human nature for people to try to gain power and take advantage of others. Therefore, attempts at creating an egalitarian society will necessarily end with power being concentrated into the hands of a few people. It should come as no surprise that the Russian Revolution resulted in a repressive dictatorship. (In fact, I am basically outlining the entire premise of Animal Farm, as I remember it.)
But it is always a mistake to haphazardly attribute to "human nature" (a muddled concept anyway) circumstances that have emerged out of specific historical processes and material conditions.
From an anthropological standpoint, the above argument is unfounded. In fact, there is a much better explanation for why the Russian Revolution produced a dictatorship.
At the time of the Revolution:
-Most of the country suffered from poverty and famine
-Infrastructure had been ravaged by World War 1
-Adequate ideological infrastructure had not been developed to integrate the very diverse regions of the Empire and to legitimate the rule of the Tsar.
Thus, amid conditions of poverty and an infrastructural void, the state had to rely on repression and violence to consolidate its rule, just as it does in other countries facing the same internal conditions.
When the conditions that have produced dictatorships all over the world, time and again, were present in Revolutionary Russia, then one must assume that it was these conditions that predisposed the USSR to dictatorship.
So, neither did the U.S. possess an economic organization that was diametrically opposed to the USSR, nor did it possess such a political organization. The difference between the U.S. and the USSR was always a difference in wealth and not in ideology.
Monday, April 4, 2011
MENA Dictatorships and Colonialism
The recent history of the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) region has been characterized by three successive waves of colonization. First, by the Ottoman Empire, until the Arabs were "liberated" by the British and French. This inaugurated a period of British and French colonization, until the Arabs were "liberated" by the United States. The United States then took up the torch of colonization (under its fancy new guise: neocolonialism). It should also be mentioned that Israeli imperialism has been pereceived as an extension of European imperialism; and the USSR also made some in-roads before its collapse.
Two means of resisting imperialism have been salient in the capitalist era. Nationalism is an assertment of the right to self-determination and a challenge to the racist assumptions (re: the superiority of European culture) that undergird the colonial enterprise. Socialism is a reaction to globalization and capitalist exploitation. These movements have often been employed in concert with each other in liberation struggles all over the world.
In the MENA region, Islamic fundamentalism represents a third mode of colonial resistance. It is many ways a type of nationalism, as it an assertment of the superiority of traditional Islamic values over Western, secular culture. This is most definitely a challenge to institutionalized racism, particularly the scholarly enterprise of "Orientalism," which has portrayed Arabs and those of the Islamic faith as cuturally backward and prone to irrationality and liscentiousness.
Various combinations of Arab nationalism, socialism, and Islamic fundamentalism have been employed in resistance struggles in the MENA region. Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism have also been actively cultivated by, first, the British/French and then the U.S. to fuel resistance movements against OTHER colonial powers (the Ottoman Empire in the first case; the USSR in the second).
At other times, the British and French created and encouraged religious sectarian rilvaries in order to effect divisions among the population and consolidate their own rule. Furthermore, the British, French, and U.S. have all had an interest in undermining socialist movements, overthrowing democratically elected governments (for example, in Iraq and Iran), and supporting (sometimes installing) dictators with whom they could "do business." In this way, these colonial powers have actively nourished instability, authoritarianism, and infrastructural weakness to maintain neo-colonial control over the region.
And for what ulimate purpose? The necessities of capitalism.
The MENA protestors are just as concerned about employment, wages, and social services as they are civil and political rights. In part (notwithstanding concerns about political repression and abuse), they believe that democracy is a means to effecting better socio-economic conditions. Yet, it is poverty that creates the conditions for dictatorship, and not vice versa.
Attempts at social and economic reform that would mitigate poverty and create more egalitarian conditions are routinely squelched by the U.S. and other capitalist powers. For it is in their interest to keep markets "open to foreign investment" (read: open to exploitation by multinational corporations).
In short, inequality and widespread poverty exist in MENA because it is a necessity for capitalist profitability. U.S. and European foreign policy in the region has revolved around creating and sustaining these conditions.
If the Arabs wish for a better life, it is capitalism and colonialism that they must continue to fight against. Not just the individual dictators.
Two means of resisting imperialism have been salient in the capitalist era. Nationalism is an assertment of the right to self-determination and a challenge to the racist assumptions (re: the superiority of European culture) that undergird the colonial enterprise. Socialism is a reaction to globalization and capitalist exploitation. These movements have often been employed in concert with each other in liberation struggles all over the world.
In the MENA region, Islamic fundamentalism represents a third mode of colonial resistance. It is many ways a type of nationalism, as it an assertment of the superiority of traditional Islamic values over Western, secular culture. This is most definitely a challenge to institutionalized racism, particularly the scholarly enterprise of "Orientalism," which has portrayed Arabs and those of the Islamic faith as cuturally backward and prone to irrationality and liscentiousness.
Various combinations of Arab nationalism, socialism, and Islamic fundamentalism have been employed in resistance struggles in the MENA region. Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism have also been actively cultivated by, first, the British/French and then the U.S. to fuel resistance movements against OTHER colonial powers (the Ottoman Empire in the first case; the USSR in the second).
At other times, the British and French created and encouraged religious sectarian rilvaries in order to effect divisions among the population and consolidate their own rule. Furthermore, the British, French, and U.S. have all had an interest in undermining socialist movements, overthrowing democratically elected governments (for example, in Iraq and Iran), and supporting (sometimes installing) dictators with whom they could "do business." In this way, these colonial powers have actively nourished instability, authoritarianism, and infrastructural weakness to maintain neo-colonial control over the region.
And for what ulimate purpose? The necessities of capitalism.
The MENA protestors are just as concerned about employment, wages, and social services as they are civil and political rights. In part (notwithstanding concerns about political repression and abuse), they believe that democracy is a means to effecting better socio-economic conditions. Yet, it is poverty that creates the conditions for dictatorship, and not vice versa.
Attempts at social and economic reform that would mitigate poverty and create more egalitarian conditions are routinely squelched by the U.S. and other capitalist powers. For it is in their interest to keep markets "open to foreign investment" (read: open to exploitation by multinational corporations).
In short, inequality and widespread poverty exist in MENA because it is a necessity for capitalist profitability. U.S. and European foreign policy in the region has revolved around creating and sustaining these conditions.
If the Arabs wish for a better life, it is capitalism and colonialism that they must continue to fight against. Not just the individual dictators.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The MENA Protests
In my last post I asserted that the difference between dictatorships and democracies is a difference in degree and not in kind. State repression and violence are tied to overall conditions of poverty and lack of infrastructure.
What does this mean for MENA? Will these revolts truly end in a flowering of democracy in the Middle East?
Probably not. The root of the problem in that region is not dictatorship, per se. It is a history of colonialism and continued capitalist exploitation that has resulted in the destitution of a vast majority of the population. (Subject of part 3.)
The problem, as I see it, is that the revolts are not being directed at the real locus of oppression: capitalist imperialism. I am truly excited by the energy and commitment to change that is rippling across the region. Revolution is truly needed at this point. However, I just hope that energy can be harnassed and transformed into a global struggle to demolish the pillars of capitalist, neocolonial domination.
If the revolts remain relatively localized struggles to replace heads of state and other government officials, I fear that nothing will change in the end.
What does this mean for MENA? Will these revolts truly end in a flowering of democracy in the Middle East?
Probably not. The root of the problem in that region is not dictatorship, per se. It is a history of colonialism and continued capitalist exploitation that has resulted in the destitution of a vast majority of the population. (Subject of part 3.)
The problem, as I see it, is that the revolts are not being directed at the real locus of oppression: capitalist imperialism. I am truly excited by the energy and commitment to change that is rippling across the region. Revolution is truly needed at this point. However, I just hope that energy can be harnassed and transformed into a global struggle to demolish the pillars of capitalist, neocolonial domination.
If the revolts remain relatively localized struggles to replace heads of state and other government officials, I fear that nothing will change in the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)