Feminist Philosophy: Science, Objectivity, Rationality

While many feminists have criticized the notion that science can, or should, be objective, Evelyn Fox Keller accepts the need for a different kind of scientific objectivity (Matthews 1993, p. 207).  This summary will trace Keller’s notion about the dualistic character of Western thought.  It will explain the way this dualism is both reflected in scientific ideas about objectivity, and operates in the creation of the modern, Western individual (Matthews 1993, p.207).  I will emphasize Keller’s arguments about the way the individual’s experience of masculine and feminine has both constructed, and been constructed by, science (Matthews 1993, p.207).  I will also outline the way science can become one possible avenue/discourse/institution for the reconstruction of Western thought, through the inclusion of the Other.

Increasing representation of women in scientific fields has not solved the problem of women’s association with nature and emotion, and they way it has been defined in opposition to a rational and detached male (Keller 1987, p.80).  As Keller (1997, p. 80) points out, 31 percent of the scientific workforce in America was occupied by women in 1986.  Nevertheless she argues that women’s nature is still seen as alien to science and there is still the assumption that their nature encourages women to do a different kind of science (Keller 1989, p. 80).  Whilst it is true that women in Asia, for example, are generally more involved in the health and behavioural sciences, their lack of participation in the physical sciences cannot be explained by biological essentialist assumptions about women’s nature (Ng Choon Sim 1994, p.284).

Feminists have made several responses to the underlying ideas in science.  Bleier (1991, p.251) has criticized the idea that biology determines difference, that is, the unequal relationship between the sexes.  The biological determinist approach ignores both the sex/gender distinction and a cross-cultural perspective that accounts for difference between men and women of a variety of races and class positions (Keller 1987, p. 81).  Furthermore, scientists like Keller (1987, p.81) have begun to question both the assumptions science makes about a single truth, and the notion that the laws of nature are universal.  Keller’s lived experiences with motherhood, feminism and psychoanalysis caused her to reevaluate the usefulness of traditional scientific accounts of objectivity and truth.

Keller (1987, p.78) asserts that the history of Western thought has consciously and unconsciously been based on the idea that the mind and the body are split.  Knowledge and objectivity have developed around the notion that the subject (or the knower) must distance themselves from all that is feminine.  Keller parallels the construction of objectivity in science with a psychoanalytic account of the development of the ‘masculine self’.  Her argument relies strongly on the notion that the creation of an individual masculine identity requires separation from, and rejection of, the Other (Matthews 1993, p.208-211).  Matthews agues that smaller differences between observer and observed exist both in African societies and in the behaviour/minds/actions of Western women.  Many feminists claim that a reintegration of self/other and subject/object is necessary, if inequalities between men and women are to be further deconstructed (Matthews 1993, p.211).

Whether or not the origin of the dualism in Western science is seen to emerge out of the male’s construction of his own identity, it is evident that Western science is historically (and continues to be) organized around dualisms such as mind/body and reason/emotion.  It can be argued that dualism operating within both science and ‘selfhood’ reinforce one another, and combine to justify the self’s relationship to the Other.  Keller (1987, p.80) argues that the embeddedness of cultural ideas about the way men and women are has shaped science, and that, simultaneously, the authority of science has shaped cultural ideas about men and women (Keller 1987, p. 80).

Matthews (1993, p. 208) discusses several feminist responses to the notion of scientific objectivity.  She rejects the pessimistic notion of some relativist feminists, that objectivity is impossible to achieve.  Matthews praises integrationist feminists, such as Keller, for their capacity to acknowledge a new way of thinking rationally and 'doing' science.  Keller argues for an objectivity that uses a less dualistic relationship of subject to object (Matthews 1993, p.211).  McClintock (1995, p.214) expands upon the notion of the relationship of the observer to the observed, when she asserts that all objects have a communicative capacity.  In this notion, an object presents its possibilities to human beings.  This way of thinking is in contrast with both, ideas about knowledge in Western thought, and the general scientific notion that the human subject autonomously creates and objectively knows (Matthews 1993, p. 213).  Keller’s account of objectivity also differs from traditional science, in that it recognizes that knowing does involve subjectivity (internal experience), that is; feelings, values, emotions and intuition (Matthews 1993, p. 224).

Pluralist feminists have responded to the notion of objectivity by arguing that there are no real feminine or masculine characteristics, and no ‘essentialised’ identities (Matthews 1993, p.214).  By acknowledging the claims of all individuals, Matthews (1993, p. 220) argues that pluralism cannot prove feminism is better than male supremacy.  She argues that pluralism unrealistically works with the notion that knowledges are mutually enriching.  Although pluralism has a very restrictive understanding of power and knowledge, pluralist accounts are important in that they recognize that the position of women is occupied by class and race, as well as gender (Matthews 1993, p. 222).

Whilst it may seem that integrationists are arguing that women are essentially more relational in construction of their individual psychology, Matthews (1993, p. 213) defends the integrationist position by stating that Keller is not intending to separate male and female perspectives, or essentialise them. Bleier sums up Matthew’s view of Keller:

“One may indeed value the characteristics in our Western societies that are associated with femaleness – and, indeed, need to celebrate them, since they seem to be the only force standing in the way of our society’s plunge into self-destruction – but we need not justify them as natural, biological or innate” (Bleier 1991, p. 254).

Keller and Bleier both recognize that males and females do not necessarily fit into the masculine or feminine correspondences in which they are generally associated.  Nevertheless, they understand that feminists have effectively used these correspondences to further the value accorded to women.

New definitions of objectivity may provide the basis for theoretical developments and alternative possibilities for the individual, in the construction of his or her identity.  Keller is recognizing that science is one area in which the oppositional nature of categories such as male/female, mind/body, culture/nature can be transformed, and in effect, influence the oppositional construction of Western thought (Matthews 1993, p.220).  Nevertheless, theorists must remember that such oppositions are unique to Western culture, and an understanding of them may not provide an understanding of the way inequality was constructed in pre-capitalist Western and non-Western societies.

In conclusion, Keller argues that bringing together characteristics that are generally unassociated; rationality/emotion and mind/body would affect science positively.  Perhaps then, technology and science will include perspectives about knowing that are not as destructive to the Other, and  indeed, to nature.  Keller’s assertions provide the basis for an alternative objectivity that is more friendly to the needs and thoughts of women.  Perhaps such a move in scientific thought could encourage the individual to manifest itself more in relation to, and not at the expense of, the Other (Matthews 1993, p. 213).

Otherness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other

Binary Opposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_opposition

Identity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity

Essentialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

Pluralism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(philosophy)

Revolutionary Integrationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_integrationism

Caffeine: The point of almost no return

13 seconds: "If you need caffeine, if you’re dependent on it...it’s just like being dependant on a drug…and I don’t want that for you’.

Thanks Doctor 

33 seconds: ‘I don’t care if once in a while you use a little caffeine, you use a little stimulant, to take care of feeling a little bit better., but if you need it every day, if you can’t function without it, you’re on your way to some real problems’

Thanks Doctor

1 min 14 seconds: ‘now I never believe anyone’s a lost cause’

*Holds up a mirror to the good Doctor*

1 min 28 seconds: ‘your body can’t keep up. You can't continue to do that and hold up forever.   Or even throught your lifetime. Or perhaps even for a very short time. You push it far enough, the body will give up’

Doctor, I was hoping that my adrenals would support me for another 2 lifetimes, so i would like to thanks you for this.

2 min 29 seconds ‘realise that the caffeine, the drugs…’

Doctor, did you work with Barbara Bush?

2 min  40 seconds ‘did you know that it works your liver pretty strongly’

Doctor, you seem really smart, but your grammar and your scientific language is real confusin'.

4 min 12 seconds: "there would be a point when its take more and more. And then theres a point where it just doesn’t matter. You won’t even get a response. Do you really want to take your body that far? I’m hoping you can come back from that’ 

Doctor, is caffeine the best gateway drug?

4 min 46 seconds "if you need a fix, then it’s time to turn that around’

Doctor, I think I need to turn this frown upside down.

6 min 20 seconds: "so don’t get dependant on it. I don’t want you dependant on anything, except clean water, food and activity. Don’t use caffeine. Don’t abuse it. Don’t abuse anything".

Doctor, I am dependant on you for your insight.

6 min 40 sec: ‘whatever drug you wanna talk about, it has its time it has its place’

Doctor, what would be an appropriate place to use meth?  Is a dance party an appropriate place to use ecstasy and when and where should I take my MDMA, my DMT, my PCP...

7 min 8 seconds ‘so use a little, but use restraint. Don’t get dependant. Caffeine can be dangerous . use it appropriately. remember that self sufficiency comes from taking care of yourself

Doctor, if self sufficiency comes from taking care of myself, does efficiency come from being a little bit more efficient?

7 min 40 seconds ‘you’re gunna need some help…there are some erbs called adaptogens
.  And that’s exactly what they do…’

Are you an 'erb doctor? just askin'

8 min 10 sec: "I don’t want you to fall asleep in 5 minutes. If you hit the pillow and you’re asleep it’s a pretty good test and sign that youre over stressed".

K.

9min 35 sec:‘because there will be a point of almost no return’

Does the point of no return exist?  And is the point of no return different for practicing Christians?  And what does it feel like for a girl?  I don't think I want to ask Madonna.  

9min  40sec ‘use drugs, caffeine, even sugar, in a sense can be like a drug…is like a drug even though it’s a fuel….be careful how you use thses things.  you want to work with your body, not against it’

Why thank you, Sugar.

10min 10 sec ‘overstimulating your body to the point it gives up is not the way to do it. So be carful again. Use caffeine, but don’t overuse it. And don’t ever get dependant on anything’

I promise to never get addicted or depressed.

Sandy is a Mental Disorder! Social Psychology by Paul Aitken

Hi.  My name is Sandy and I have a drug problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBGyf8FNEY&feature=relmfu

Sandy's grand theory

1. Caffeine gets you high.   "Caffeine is still a poison.  In fact, if you just give a person 10g of caffeine…they are going to die". 
2. Caffeine is nicotine's little sister. Caffeine is like picking up a big barrel of pesticide and pouring it straight into your mouth.
3. Sandy's favourite thing in the world is: 292.9 Caffeine Related Disorder not otherwise specified.
4. She likes ratings.  
5. She does the wiggle man.  She works out.

Notes on Sandy

1. Look at her dress, look at her house, look at her fake glasses and why in Christ's name is she crossing her legs like that, with her bible between them.  Why is she in a leather throne.  Why is the background all soft and fuzzy? Has Sandy ever seen 'Basic Instinct'?
2. She doesn't know much about the history of coke.  Is she on coke?  Why is her leg moving so much  
3. No i don't like Starbucks Sandy, but why did you buy your dress from there.
4. Why does she have rambling flow of thoughts and speech?  
5. Why does Sandy give me flu like symptoms, eg. nauseau, vomiting, muscle pain and stiffness, headache, clinically significant distress and functional impairment.  Why was there a sudden onset of symptoms when she said that she's not making this up? Why does listening to Sandy give me FATIGUE, DIFFICULTY CONCENTRATING, RESTLESSNESS, NERVOUSNESS, INSOMNIA, FLUSHED FACE and MUSCLE TWITCHING
6. Why are the arabs responsible for the problem of coffee, in Sandy's insightful facts about coffee? 
7. Sandy looks “cheap and readily available” in the 'subliminal' message at 4.30min (has to be seen a few times to be believed).
8. I can't wait to hear what Sandy has to say about hypo-sexuality vs hyper-sexuality
9. Sandy gives me severe gastrointestinal disturbance and irritable bowel syndrome.

Climate change will have a significant impact on our global food supply

Introduction

Climate change is already reducing the amount of food available worldwide and will continue to increase the cost and availability of food.  To understand the effect of climate change on food, it is important to examine the system of food production and agriculture.  Many experts examine the way agriculture operates under capitalism, arguing that while there have been major increases in the quantity of food produced, these have often been at the expense of the environment (Campbell-Lendrum, Corvalan & Neira 2007).  This essay will examine how current agricultural methods are creating climate change, as well as exploiting the developing world. To supply equitable distribution of food to the entire global population, the importance of critical research and action on at individual, institutional and global levels is highlighted.

Climate Change

Climate change has come about through increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere (Campbell-Lendrum, Corvalan & Neira 2007).  Global warming is largely a result of human activities such as burning of fossil fuels (Campbell-Lendrum, Corvalan & Neira 2007).  The earth’s surface temperature has risen significantly in the last three decades and it will continue to rise by 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius over the 21^st century (Campbell-Lendrum, Corvalan & Neira 2007).  Many climate experts argue that a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius worldwide is the tipping point for catastrophic, irreversible climate change (Jay & Marmot 2009).

Climate change has a range of complex effects on the natural system upon which human beings depend. Climate warming has been linked to more extreme weather conditions such as droughts, floods and severe storms.  Millions of environmental refugees have been displaced by extreme weather and slow shifts in weather patterns (Campbell-Lendrum, Corvalan & Neira 2007).  Rising sea levels and the effects of droughts and floods will have increasing effects on the quantity and quality of agricultural land. Biodiversity shifts through ecosystem change will continue to have dramatic effects, including changing patterns of pest and diseases and competition from invading species.  As the climate changes, water availability and contamination will become an increasingly significant global concern (Boxall et al 2009, Campbell-Lendrum, Corvalan & Neira 2007).

History of Agriculture

In many rich countries, modern agriculture has allowed the generation of surplus food for an increasing population (Helms 2004).  Between the 1940s and the 1970s, major advances in food technology such as fertilizers, pesticides and farm machine technology have resulted in huge increases in the amount of food that farmers are able to grow (Singh 2009).  In Australia, this increase in efficiency has resulted in food being significantly cheaper for the consumer (Read & Jones 2002).  It used to be that the worker would spend 60-80 percent of their earnings on food for a family.  These days, the equivalent expenditure is more like 20-30 percent (Read & Jones 2002).

Industrialisation, the rise of agriculture and the globalization of the food system, provide a number of challenges to the global food supply.  Unsustainable farming methods have left 40 percent of the world’s agricultural land seriously degraded.  In the next ten years, up to 50 million hectares of agricultural land in Australia will become too acidic for plant growth. Current farming methods are reliant on excessive water, ploughing, as well as synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.  These methods are stripping nutrients from soils.  Pesticides are being increasingly used to treat crops that are vulnerable to pests and diseases, further leading to soils that cannot be used for the growing of food crops (Leahy 2008, Worsley 2008). 

Sixteen million hectares of land in developing countries are planted for export crops of tea, coffee and cocoa, thus taking away the capacity to feed local populations.  Annually, 100 million kilograms of meat are exported to the USA from Central America, mostly from land that was recently tropical rainforest (Leahy 2008). Land and labour in developing countries is being used unsustainably to produce food for the richer countries. 

Current food production methods (such as monocultural agriculture) are responsible for deforestation.  Burning forests releases carbon into the atmosphere, contributing about one-sixth of global carbon emissions.  If forests are left standing, they absorb about one tenth of global carbon emissions (Boxall et al 2007).

Oil is a limited resource on our planet.  Increasing oil prices will increase the cost of food, as we are dependent upon oil for the production and transportation of food.  Most forecasters estimate that oil will become much more expensive by 2020 (Singh 2009, Leahy 2008).

Under globalization, richer countries buy food commodities from poorer regions like India and South America (Worsley 2008). In the USA today, the average distance food has travelled to reach the plate is 2000 kilometers (Leahy 2008).  Globalization has made food production less localized and more dependent on cheap labour and fuel for its production and transport (Jay 2009).

Alternatives to petroleum such as the use of biofuel to produce energy is an unsuitable solution to depleting worldwide oil resources.  In 2008, 18 percent of the USA’s grain production was converted into biofuel.   This diverts from food crop production (placing extra pressure on agriculture), increasing the cost of food (Singh 2009).

Increased food production that has given us an abundance in first world countries like Australia, are not sustainable, contributing significantly to global warming, and will lead to a rise in the cost of food (Helms 2004). The current food system is responsible for around 40 percent of greenhouse gas omissions worldwide (Worsley 2008).

Worldwide Food Security

As human beings are dependant on the natural environment for their food, and this environment is rapidly changing, the issue of the global food supply must be understood in relation to climate change.  Food security is concerned with understanding and creating a stable food supply for the entire world, not just the people of Australia or the rich first world countries. (Leahy 2008).

One quarter of the world’s population does not have enough food (Worsley 2008).  840 million people do not get enough energy and protein in their diet and at least another billion are anemic and suffer food shortages (Leahy 2008).  In 2002, there was enough food to feed the world’s population, yet 800 million people lived in absolute poverty, affected by malnutrition and undernourishment (Helms 2004). 

The cost of rice in Thailand, India and Pakistan doubled in 2007.  Asian families often spend half their weekly budget on food and rice is a staple food in many of these countries (Singh 2009). Communities that are most vulnerable to food security are those places where malnutrition is already the largest single contributor to disease (Campbell-Lendrum, Corvalan & Neira 2007).  Jay and Marmot (2009) indicate that it is in Africa and other places that where poverty, lack of resources, infrastructure and sometimes government, will be effected the most by climate change related food security.

Problematically for these countries, 80 percent of the land is owned by three percent of the population (Leahy 2008).  In these countries, as in the rich countries responsible for most of the world’s climate change, environmental problems could be further increased by the adoption of modern agricultural methods and competition on the international market (Leahy 2008).

Capitalism

It has been argued that as developing countries come out of poverty, their adoption of capitalist lifestyles will cause the global food supply problem will get worse.  As people become more affluent, their consumption of grain increases, as do their consumptions of fruit, vegetables and animal foods (Helms 2004).  While ensuring that we address poverty through immediate action, long-term production needs to be sustainable or we will just be creating more problems.

Economic and social forces uphold the value of meat, discouraging people in the rich Western countries from adopting a diet that is less reliant on meat (Helms 2004).  One quarter of the world’s population consumes unnecessary amounts of animal proteins and vegetarianism is seen to compare favourably to present diets, in terms of land use (Helms 2004).  Singh (2009) 1kg of beef requires 7kg grain, 10 000 liters water, I kg beef, 1000-2000 for same amount grain. 

In Australia, two-thirds of the food retailing is controlled by two supermarket chains, Coles and Woolworths (Read & Jones 2002).  These businesses are largely governed by profits rather than social and environmental responsibility, so the power they have in controlling what the public think and the availability of environmentally sustainable products (those that have not travelled far to get to us and have been grown under sustainable conditions) is immense. 

Solutions

Solutions to the problem of the global food supply in the face of global warming include increasing food production, addressing population, finding alternatives to fossil fuels, and others look at changes to the modes of agriculture through locally grown produce.  There is a need to use less energy, produce energy in different ways, and adopt agricultural methods that do not make any more land arid. (Singh 2009; Helms 2004).

Locally Grown Food and better ways of growing

Leahy (2008) examines alternatives to the current agricultural system by upholding that use no artificial fertilizers and synthetic fertilizers, using crop rotation, planting legumes and living mulch.  More research regulation, monitoring, development into more sustainable use is important (Nijkamp & Vindigni 2002; Boxall et al 2009).  Polycultural systems would be less reliant on fossil fuels as we would produce almost all our food in the local neighborhood (Leahy 2008).  Singh recognizes that there is great potential for local food production and that state planners need to recognize this (Singh 2009).

Individual Change

As individuals, we need to continue to understand and challenge our acceptance of a capitalist system.  Our actions in all arenas of our life need to place the environment with regard, as it is a system upon which we are dependant.  Leahy (2008) works with the notion that we are allowing the government to place the environment last by participating uncritically in a system where we accept that increasing affluence will bring us happiness (Howard 2010; Leahy 2008).

Keys, Thomsen & Smith (2009) argues that the amount and quality of political discussion within social networks is associated with higher levels of political participation.  As individuals we need to get more involved in how things are run, otherwise the fight for the environment will be lost.

Institutional Change

The sustainable development commission argues that there needs to be incentives offered to producers, processors, food retailers and consumers (Jones 2008).

Retailers need to integrate sustainability into their core business (Jones 2008).  While business may claim to be doing this, there appears to be much evidence that this is largely hearsay (Howard 2010).

Governments needs to support sustainable land use and set up a physical and social structures necessary for an economy without cheap oil (Leahy 2008).  Jones and Hllier (2008) government policies need to support major food retailers in delivering a more sustainable food system.  Needs to be more research into what they can do to limit the power of capitalism to destroy the environment.

Global change

Campbell-Lendrum, D., Corvalan, C., & Neira, M. (2007) recognizes that while change at regional and state levels is important, international agreements are important.  He mentions Kyoto Protocol and US key negotiator in 1997 of its development, yet renouncing it in 2001.  This global action is necessary because it is a global problem and we have created this problem for the developing world.  If the rest of the developing world were to adopt capitalist agricultural practices there would be no resources and the resultant warming of the globe would further compromise the environment.

Conclusion

The effects of global warming are providing challenges to worldwide food security, limiting our food supply and making it more expensive.  Under capitalism, complex systems have developed that have left us disconnected with our absolute reliance on the environment.  Action must be taken on an individual, institutional and global level to understand and combat further climate change.  Research into new methods of transport and agriculture are important.  At the same time, it is critical that as human beings, we examine the systems under which we live and enact change through individual action and political action.  We must force the retail industry to change.  We must encourage governments to understand change, as the systems that are creating global warming continue to thrive (any system that relies on unsustainable farming methods and cheap transport to provide cheap food).   Current practices are increasing the degradation of soils and governments need to undertake research greener technologies.  They also need to regulate players in the food system and ensure that they are acting out of environmental interests.  If there is any hope of worldwide food security, which should be the goal of any ethical person, as individuals and groups, we need to demand that governments act globally, by developing and adhering to international agreements.

References

Boxall, A., Hardy, A., Beulke, S., Boucard, T., Burgin, L., Falloon, P., . . . Williams, R. (2009).  Impacts of climate change on indirect human exposure to pathogens and chemicals from agriculture.  Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(4), 508-514.

Campbell-Lendrum, D., Corvalan, C., & Neira, M. (2007).  Global climate change:    Implications for international public health policy.  Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 85(3), 235-237.

Helms, M. (2004).  Food sustainability, food security and the environment.  British Food Journal, 106(5), 380-387.

Howard, A. (2010). Perspectives on practice:  A new global ethic.  Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 506-517.

Jay, M., & Marmot, M. (2009).  Health and climate change.  The Lancet, 374(9694), 961-962.

Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2008).  Moving towards sustainable food retailing?.  International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(12), 995-1001.

Keys, N., Thomsen, D., & Smith, T. (2010).  Opinion leaders and complex sustainability issues. Management of Environmental Quality:  An International Journal, 21(2), 187-197.

Leahy, T. (2008).  Unsustainable food production:  Its social origins and alternatives.  In J. Germov & L. Williams (Eds.), A Sociology of food and nutrition:  The social appetite (3^rd ed) (pp. 58-73).  Victoria:  Oxford University Press.

Nijkamp, P., & Vindigni, G. (2002).  Food security and agricultural sustainability:  An overview of critical success factors.  Environmental Management and Health, 13(5), 495-511.

Read, R., & Jones, G. (2002). The food supply.  In M.L. Wahlqvist (Ed.), Australia and New Zealand food & nutrition (2^nd ed).  Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Singh, S. (2009).  Global food crisis: Magnitude, causes and policy measures.  International Journal of Social Economics, 36(1-2), 22-36.