The Intersection of Language, Culture and Cognition

While causality turns into a rather chicken/egg discussion, I suspect that the reality of it is much the same as the reality of that metaphor. While the actual mechanisms that drove the earliest development of language, abstract cognition and rudimentary culture is lost in eons of time, there is a lot that we can surmise. There are even aspects of this question we can probably describe with a great deal of accuracy. Unquestionably, this is an incredibly fascinating discussion.

Over the past few years I have become increasingly interested in the relationship between language and culture. At the same time, I have become interested in the relationship between language and cognition. I have also been very intrigued with the evolution of all three of these, for many years - and as I have been afforded the opportunity to explore the relationships I mentioned, I have become increasingly fascinated by the evolution of all three, in relation to each other.

In a turn that really blasted me into dizzying realms of abstract correlations, I have also become increasingly intrigued by the cultural relativity of psychopathology. I rather latched onto this concept, because for many years - since I was a child really, I have been beset by the idea that mental illness/neurological disorders/cognitive maladaptations are really misnamed. What exactly is it that qualifies the way one person's brain happens to work as mental illness, versus the way another person's brain works as merely being a little "odd?"*

Is it their brain that is screwed up? Or is it their socialization/culturalization - the society in which they live that is so screwed up?

As I have explored the manifestations of atypical neurology in different cultural contexts, I am increasingly convinced that the latter is considerably more of a problem. Assuming it is indeed society that is screwed up, the question becomes; "given the megalithic nature of society, does this distinction even matter?" or "is there really any reasonable solution to be found for this problem?" To the first question, I cannot but respond that yes, this distinction is remarkably important. The answer to the second question though, is much more complicated and largely depends on how one might define "reasonable."

I think that the largest barrier we face is the very nature of science research in our modern culture. In many disciplines we are increasingly running into a situation where the existing paradigm of each discipline to it's own, is becoming less and less feasible. My perception may be biased by the context of my focus, but I suspect that there is no other area where this is becoming more apparent, than in the social sciences. This is largely because the more science oriented practitioners of psychology, sociology and anthropology - even to some degree, philosophy are developing vast areas of overlap. In some cases, it is simply not possible to follow lines of research without input from each.

Yet the culture of science tends to shy from interdisciplinary cooperation, something that causes problems across the board, but which is most insidious in the social sciences. Anthropology, sociology and even psychology are seeing a major battle between those who wish to do hard science and postmodern extremists who believe that hard science is a bourgeois affectation and fallacious because we can never truly "know" anything. At the same time, most of the most practical and important work being done in all three disciplines, requires input from multiple subdisciplines of the others.

As our world continues to shrink, as historical barriers between cultures fade away, we are flying blindly into a world beset by misunderstandings and exploitations that all too often explode into violent conflicts. And the vast majority of these conflagrations can be traced directly to the intersect of language, cognition and culture. Our language, the use, the content - even the very structure of our languages predispose us to various cultural paradigms. Likewise, language predisposes us to various cognitive paradigms. But complicating all of this, our cognitive paradigms predispose us to certain language and cultural paradigms, while our cultural paradigms predispose us to certain cognitive and linguistic paradigms.

There is absolutely no doubt that untangling this web of influence is a herculean and possibly impossible task. While many correlations are blatantly obvious, causations are complicated by the very nature of nature of those correlations. But ultimately the exploration of this conjunction has less to do with untangling the web and everything to do with peripheral benefit. Exploring this intersect would teach us a great deal about who "we" are, who "they" are**, how we can all interact with less friction and who all of us might become.

Over the course of this semester, I have the opportunity to explore some aspects of this confluence. It is my sincere hope that as I work my way through my education, I will be able to functionally explore many more facets of this intersect. This nexus is relevant to my educational, research and career goals. Ultimately this nexus is the forge that shapes all of the pieces of who/what "we" are, and who/what "they" are.

As I produce various projects, I will be posting them here - hopefully in a relatively coherent fashion. This will probably mean shuffling things around, sometimes adjusting previously posted writings and sometimes I will be throwing up short posts like this one, just to get my thoughts together in a relatively coherent fashion.

I should admit now, that I will probably rarely be posting anything that is not related to this relatively broad topic. I will occasionally post personal stuff and will probably throw up stuff that really jumps out at me, but for the most part, I am going to be sticking in this particular direction. While I would really like to post about human sexuality and a host of other topics that interest me, I just don't see myself really having the time and energy. We will just have to see how things go...

*There are actually relatively objective methods for determining this, that was intended as a rhetorical question to make you think...

**I quite purposely left that very vague, because by "we" and "they" I mean several different things. I mean "we" as in individuals, a subcultural collective and a macrocultural collective. I mean "they" as in other individuals, other subcultural collectives and other macrocultural collectives.

Dialectics, History and Cross Cultural Communications

Posted to my Com class message board. A dialectic perspective of history and it's impact on communications across cultures was the topic and we needed to include an example of something we learned that turned out to be wrong. Here is a concise explanation of the dialectic perspective of communications for context. Thanks to the University of Maryland for what is turning out to be a very handy reference for this class.

It is often important to understand other cultures, from the perspective of their history because it forces us to take a more objective view of their present. An excellent example given in the book is the role that history has played in black/white race relations in the U.S.

It is very easy to forget that our present and the present of others are ultimately the current culmination of what our ancestors passed down from generation to generation. This is both a progression of traditions and heritage, as well as the transmission of changes each generation made in the face of the perceived cultural failings.

Without the considering that this progression happens in every culture, it is all too easy to judge the cultural practices that we find distasteful in others from our own progression. While there is no question that regardless of the cultural context some cultural practices are absolutely repugnant, any attempt to foster change in those cultures must take into account the history that brought about those practices. When one can communicate from the context of this other culture and it's history, it creates a communication paradigm that this other culture will be far more receptive to.

I think a very good example of this, is the history of interactions between native Americans and the European settlers. Many of those of us who were educated in public schools were taught that the Europeans did really horrible things to the natives of this land. But what we were taught actually paints my ancestors in a much better light than they deserve. It is a lot like saying that Nazi Germany mistreated the Jews.

What actually happened was nothing less than a systematic attempt to entirely destroy the cultural heritage of all native Americans. From outright genocide, to removing children from their parents for re-education, often beating children who spoke their native languages or attempted to follow their spiritual heritage. Just 120 years ago, we still thought little of gunning down 200 natives. Just 37 years ago, intolerable conditions on a primarily Lakota reservation, led residents of that reservation to take over and occupy a small town, leading to a major standoff with federal officers.

And just 18 years ago, two native Americans lost their jobs and were denied unemployment benefits for having participated in a religious ceremony involving the ingestion of peyote. While many of us assume that the exploitation of native lands ended a long time ago, even today we refuse to allow the reservations the autonomy they were promised by treaties made and broken over the past two hundred and some odd years. Attempts to assuage our guilt by allowing native Americans to open casinos on their lands is ludicrously inadequate.

I learned the Disney version of the history of interactions between European immigrants and native Americans more than twenty years ago. I have learned the considerably more horrifying truth of it mostly over the past ten years. Yet this understanding is essential to understanding just why many native Americans are extremely angry. For nearly three hundred years they have been subjected to the whims of mostly European settlers and their antecedents. Entire native cultures have been irretrievably destroyed, all others threatened nigh to extinction.

As the conquerors who wrote the history, we learn something less shameful than the reality. Our ancestors (those who have roots extending back) committed horrible atrocities, atrocities that many wanted to forget. What was passed through our generational progression was slowly changed to something far less egregious that it was. Making it easier to ignore much of the suffering this nation was founded upon and to ignore our continued subjugation of native Americans.

Native Americans have a generational progression as well. One that carries the scars of cuts hundreds of years old, given stark clarity by the wounds suffered by each generation since. Without understanding both our own history and the history if native Americans - a history that stretches for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, it is very difficult to understand the anger, the sensitivities of natives taking offense to things that most of us would otherwise consider trivial.

Adolescents and Addiction

This is my paper on adolescents and addiction. The paper in format with bibliography is available here. I will try to get the next post about talking to kids about drugs up over the next few days. I will also be posting my communications paper on genderism and homophobia, probably tomorrow.

According to the 2008 National Survey of Drug Use and Health, a full 9.3% of youths between the ages of 12 and 17 were current illicit drug users (SAMSHA, 2009). According to the same report the rate of binge drinking in the same age group, was 8.8%, a rate that climbs to 17.2% of 16 and 17 year olds (SAMSHA, 2009). This rate of current illicit drug use indicates a very serious problem in youth today, especially when taken in the context that there is an increasing problem with drug use initiation starting as young as ten years old. Binge drinking is generally considered substance abuse, regular binge drinking is a sign that a given individual is very likely addicted to alcohol.

Substance use in this age group may be correlated with an orientation towards risk taking, arrests, less education, pregnancy and long term substance abuse problems. Even worse, substance use at this age increases the likelihood of psychopathology and stunted neurological development (Lopez, Schwartz, Campo & Pantin, 2008). Although not all adolescent substance use will qualify as addiction, it very often leads to addiction later in life. Regular adolescent substance use often does qualify as addiction.

Defining Addiction

Put very basically, addiction is the habitual use of a substance or engaging in a behavior that causes a certain level of harm and which the addict cannot control. That is not a very satisfactory definition however, because it is very vague and ultimately fails to address the understanding that not all addiction is the same (Denning, Little & Glickman, 2004; Dodes, 2003; Khantzian & Albanese, 2008). Although this paper is focusing on substance abuse and addiction, some addictions are not substance based. Some addictions result from unrelated neurological disorders, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression and quite commonly attention deficit disorders. Other addictions are the result of a neurochemical propensity for addiction. Still others are simply the result of crisis. This is just a small number of reasons addictions happen. With all of these different causes, it is unreasonable to assume that there is one solution.

Dr. Dodes notes that “Addictions are in the mainstream of the human condition (Dodes, 2003, p. 185). Indeed Dr. Dodes asserts that the major difference between addictions and normal human compulsions is the harm and degree of harm caused by the compulsion. Dr. Khantzian and Dr. Albanese assert that the core of most addictions is a desire to self-medicate. They make a very strong case to support the notion that people use substances to compensate for unpleasant feelings, emotions or life situations (Khantzian & Albanese, 2008). Harm reduction pioneer, Dr. Denning with Little and Glickman asserts that there are many reasons people develop what they prefer to call “substance use problems.” They understand that not all substance use is the same and not all of it is abuse or addiction. Most importantly, they believe that the necessary approach is largely determined by the individual (Denning et al.,2004).

Adolescence involves many other factors that have a significant effect on addiction and substance abuse and treatment. With youth comes the developing brain and a lot more mental plasticity. This age range is also the time when many neurological disorders tend to surface. Finally, adolescence is also a time of hormonal changes
that often result in a great deal of emotional and physical distress. When the general life changes of being a teenager are factored in, adolescence significantly complicates an already complicated mental illness (Griswold, Aranoff, Kernan & Khan, 2008).

Adolescent Substance Abuse

Normative Use
According to the detailed tables of the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 39% of adolescents will have used an illicit drug and 60% will have used alcohol (SAMHSA, 2008). It is clear that not all youth who try illicit drugs and alcohol become regular users or substance abusers. Most adolescents who use substances either use it once or rarely. While no substance use among children and adolescents is safe, it is important to recognize that most youth who try illicit drugs or alcohol will not become habitual substance
users.

There are many dangers to non-regular drug use among children and adolescents. Intoxication often leads to impaired judgment and increased risk taking. The most common risks include attempting to drive under the influence and unsafe sexual behavior which in turn can lead to pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted infections (Wood, Drolet, Fertro, Synovitz & Wood, 2002). Another risk is that youth who use drugs infrequently will increase substance use either during adolescents or in adulthood (Lopez et al., 2008). There is also a significant risk that their substance use will escalate into increasingly risky substances. Finally, there is also the risk of death through overdose, allergic reaction or in the case of single
standard doses of MDMA, by mechanisms we simply don't understand at this time (Kaye, Darke & Duflou, 2009).

Dangerous Use and Abuse
By age 17, 4.6% of youths will have a substance use disorder involving illicit drugs, while 4.9% will have a substance abuse disorder involving alcohol. A full 60-75% of child and adolescent substance abusers will also be diagnosed with another mental disorder (Griswald et al., 2008; SAMHSA, 2008). It is also important to note
that while there is some crossover between illicit drug addiction and alcohol addiction, it is minimal. When the crossover is taken out of the equation 7.6% of youth, 17 and under have or have had substance use disorders (SAMHSA, 2008). To put this in context, in a group of 500 17 year old adolescents, it is very likely that 38 of those kids have experience with substance abuse disorders.

Although figures have gone down significantly since the late 1990s, they have gone down from a significant spike that started in the 1980s (SAMHSA, 2009). There is little indication that there will be a significant drop in substance abuse among youth any time soon. More importantly, the most recent fad in illicit drug use among
children and adolescents is the use of pharmaceuticals (Wood et al., 2002). The use of pharmaceuticals is particularly dangerous, because even youth who have expressed a refusal to use other illicit drugs are often willing to try pharmaceuticals in a recreational context (SAMHSA, 2009). Another serious problem is heroin use, which saw a spike in use from .5% in 1995, to steady out at 1.6% in 2001 (Hopfer, Kurhi, Crowley & Hooks, 2002) and changing little with a rate of 1.5% in 2007 and 2008(SAMHSA, 2008).

Both heroin and recreational pharmaceutical use are particularly dangerous. The potency of heroin is extremely unreliable, which creates an elevated risk of overdose leading hospitalization and death (Merscham, Leeuwen & McGuire, 2009; Hopfer et al., 2002). The danger of pharmaceutical use and abuse, is that pharmaceuticals are usually mixed with other pharmaceuticals and sometimes alcohol
(SAMHSA, 2009). This is particularly dangerous because even if it is a child's first time, the wrong combination can cause serious injury and death. Another significant problem with pharmaceuticals, is that their use is likely more prevalent among children who are not considered “at risk” than any other drug except for alcohol (Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman & Schulenberg, 2009).

Risk Factors

There are many factors that can determine whether a child is at an elevated
risk for substance use disorders. The primary factor is often described as peer pressure, but this is not an accurate description of the actual social pressures involved in initiating substance use. For most substances, the actual peer pressure is to stay away from drugs (Johnston et al., 2009; NIDA, 2003; Wood et al., 2002). Other factors that significantly elevate the risk of substance use and abuse among children and adolescents include socioeconomic status, parental involvement, parental substance use issues, parental abuse, early aggressive behavior and comorbidity (Callaghan, Tavares, Taylor & Veldhuizen, 2007; NIDA, 2003).

Social Pressure
Although general peer pressure seems to be moving in the direction of pressure not to use illicit drugs and even alcohol, it is important to explore the role that social pressures play in child and adolescent drug use. Because the general direction of peer pressure actively discourages illicit drug use, it may be causing some backlash among kids who feel they have been alienated from their general peer group (Griswald et al,, 2008; Dodes, 2003). Adolescents often feel a compulsion to rebel against not only their parents, but against people who ignore them, harass them or whom they perceive are against them in some way (Denning et al., 2004). This creates an inverse sort of peer pressure, directly countering the general
pressure not to use illicit drugs and/or alcohol. While this alone may not initiate substance use, there is more to the equation of social pressure.

Young people who feel like outcasts, tend to congregate with other kids who are like them. Many of the reasons that kids become outcast are factors that also put them at an elevated risk for substance use disorders (Denning et al., 2004; Khantzian & Albanese, 2008), creating a conjunction of elevated risk and inverse social pressure. Thus in an of itself, being a social outcast becomes a significant
risk factor. Kids who have no other elevated risk factors, who become social outcasts are at an elevated risk for that reason alone.

There are other social pressures that come into play. As kids get older, whether they have elevating risk factors or not, become increasingly likely to use alcohol. It is highly available and many children and adolescents witness their parents drinking alcohol, whether the parents drink a lot or are moderate drinkers. Thus while there may still be a general pressure to avoid illicit drugs, as children age the general peer pressure to avoid alcohol fades and often reverses into pressure to drink (Johnston et al,. 2009; SAMHSA, 2008; SAMHSA, 2009).

There is also often peer pressure involved in the abuse of pharmaceutical medications. This is complicated by many children not really perceiving recreational pharmaceutical drug use as being similar to other recreational drug use and abuse (Johnston et al,. 2009). Children and adolescents who sincerely believe that recreational drug use is bad, have no compunctions against the recreational use of pharmaceuticals. Worse, the younger a child is, the more likely it becomes that their initial drug use will be pharmaceuticals. In 2008, more than 5.4% of children ages 12-13 reported having engaged in the recreational use of pharmaceuticals.
Breaking the drug classes down, 5.4% reported using psychotheraputic drugs, 4.5% reported using pain relievers and almost 1% reported using stimulants (SAMHSA, 2008).

C0m0rbidity
There is a great deal of evidence to support the assertion that people with attention deficit disorders are significantly more likely to become substance abusers, than the general population. The comorbidity of ADHD and substance abuse is estimated between 30% and 50% (Gordon, Trulak & Troncale, 2004). While there is no significant difference in the rates of alcohol abuse, persons with ADHD are at significantly higher risk for abusing other drugs and other drugs plus alcohol. The rates of lifetime substance use disorders among persons with ADHD is 52%, compared to persons without ADHD at 27% (Biederman et al, 1995).

The comorbidity of substance use disorders and mood disorders is also very common. About 70% of people diagnosed with bipolar, for example, are tobacco users (NIDA, 2008). An National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism sponsored study found a 40% comorbidity of mood disorders, among people who sought treatment for a substance use disorder (Grant et al., 2004). Though there are still a lot of
questions to be answered about the relationship between substance use disorders and mood disorders, there is no question that mood disorders significantly increase the risk of substance abuse and addiction.

In aggregate, it is estimated that there is somewhere between a 60% and 70% comorbidity between adolescent substance use disorders and other mental illness (Griswold, 2008). While there are some questions about potential misdiagnosis due to comorbidity, the statistics are too significant to be ignored. There is no doubt that there is an extremely significant correlation between substance abuse disorders and other mental disorders.

Family
Parents and family play a very important role in determining whether a child or adolescent will develop a substance use disorder. Parents have a profound impact on their children. Many neurological disorders have a very strong familial connection, especially ADHD (Biederman et al., 2008), which is a major risk factor. The children
of parents with substance use disorders often develop substance use disorders themselves (SAMHSA, 2008). Children and adolescents from families that are economically disadvantaged have an elevated risk for substance use disorders (NIDA, 2003). Children and adolescents who do not have much interaction with their parents also have an elevated risk for substance use disorders (Denning et al., 2004;
Dodes, 2003; Johnston et al., 2009; Khantzian & Albanese, 2008; NIDA, 2003).

Prevention

There are many ideas about preventing juvenile substance use disorders. Public service announcements, parental education, peer counseling, large scale local and national government programs in public schools, school assemblies, “scared straight” programs that introduce at risk youth to prisoners, and myriad after school programs. A significant problem with all of these measures, is that there is little evidence to support the efficacy of most of these preventative measures. The studies that have been done would suggest that certain changes to current approaches might be warranted.

Nixon, Mansfield and Thoms did a study of public service announcements that suggested that providing instructional materials for in class activities following the viewing of videos would likely increase the efficacy. While their study was limited in scope, it was more intensive than many studies into the efficacy of substance use prevention measures. They also suggested that targeting youth with specific risk factors and public service announcements that were culturally specific would likely increase the effectiveness of such materials (Nixon, Mansfield & Thoms, 2008).

There is evidence that would suggest that culture specific substance use prevention measures might reduce the incidence of substance use disorders. Developing and implementing prevention programs for the classroom that are specified for the cultures represented, would expose children and adolescents to a variety of programs, while also responding to culturally specific substance use trends (NIDA, 2003).

There is also evidence that peer counseling programs can be an effective preventative tool. Programs that include mentoring are likely to be even more effective, as they discourage adolescent mentors from engaging in behaviors that they are trying to discourage younger children from engaging in. Evidence would suggest that adolescents are significantly more likely to listen to information
about substance use and sexuality that comes from their peers, than when it comes from teachers (Whiston & Sexton, 1998).

Intervention

Parents are an extremely important component to the treatment of juvenile substance use disorders. Children and adolescents with substance use problems are especially vulnerable and need a lot of support from their family and community. Family counseling is especially important, as is parental sobriety. The development of a
substance use free peer group is also very important (Griswold, 2008). It is also important to approach the situation realistically and understand that while sobriety is the ultimate goal, a harm reduction approach is not inappropriate. Complete sobriety may not happen overnight, especially if acute dependence is a factor.
Substance use disorders are often a chronic condition and in recognizing that, an implicit goal of reduction (Ie. Using only at specific times) and management may be the best short term goal (Bukstein et al., 2005; Denning et al., 2004).

Given the significant level of comorbidity, an intensive psychological assessment should be done as early in the intervention process as possible (Dodes, 2003; Griswold, 2008; Khantzian & Albanese, 2008). There is an elevated risk for suicide or other extreme responses to the intervention process (Denning et al., 2004). There is also the possibility that medication will be indicated and with certain disorders, such as bipolar type one. Abstinence from the substance of abuse may trigger an acute response without a pharmaceutical alternative (Khantzian & Albanese, 2008). In such cases there may be very little time in which to make an assessment and determine whether psychopharmacology may be appropriate (Griswald, 2008).

Unfortunately, there are many different types of addiction and substance abuse, each presenting its own unique challenges. Once the intervention has been initiated it is up to the juvenile's doctor, therapist and family to decide on the best course of action (Denning et al., 2004). It is up the the parent's, the child or adolescent
and the professionals to develop a set of goals that the child must stick to. Failure to meet specific goals must be explained by the child or adolescent and appropriate actions must be taken (Dodes, 2002; Khantzian & Albanese, 2008). If the juvenile is on medication, the medication must be closely monitored by parents (Griswald, 2008).

The most important consideration for dealing with an addict or substance abuser, is that they are still a human being. Compassion and empathy are a critical component to recovery. Disrespect and dehumanizing will not help recovery progress. Recovery does not happen because of concepts such as “tough love,”it sometimes happens in spite of those methods (Denning et al., 2004; Dodes, 2002; Khantzian & Albanese, 2008). It is important to remember that a child or adolescent with a substance use disorder is still a child.

Dangerous Tropes: "I Can Do and Be Anything I Want"

Most of my generation was raised on this trite bit of nonsense and a lot of us really believe it. "You can be anything you want to be." "You can do anything you want to do, if you really work at it." "Where there's a will, there's a way." "I've got high hopes..."

Human beings are extremely versatile and resilient. We are very capable of being a great many things, every one of us. Nearly everyone has a variety of skills to draw from and a variety of innate intellectual talents with which to develop those skills. But my innate intellectual talents are not universal, neither are yours. An artist may not have the raw analytical talent necessary for experimental design. A scientist may not have the engineering talents necessary for affecting repairs on a car or their home. An engineer may not have the abstract creative capacity needed to write poetry, or a good novel. While we humans are versatile, we are not, any of us, infinitely capable of doing absolutely anything that might strike our fancy. And not everyone has the physical capacity to be this sort of athlete or that.

Now this may grate against the social conditioning of many people who grew up with the feel good tropes of the seventies and eighties, a legacy that still haunts many of our schools today. I am sure that the claim that we cannot, in point of fact, be whatever we might want to be is offensive to some. Having grown up with it, it goes dead against my own socialization to express it. There is a rather big problem though - it's true. We are not all the same and we do not all have the same abilities. About the best that can be said, is that most of us are rather drawn to follow our innate abilities - to do what we are good at.

The problem is that when we happen to pick on something that we just don't have the talent for, we often feel that our inability to succeed is a moral failing. That we just didn't try hard enough. It is so firmly ingrained into our psyche that we often cannot comprehend, cannot accept that there is any reason except our own laziness or insufficient will that we could fail. Even when reality is pointed out, there is often a part of us that truly believes our failure was a moral deficiency on our part. I mean come on, everybody knows that if you want it enough, you can totally make it happen. Except when you can't. At which point it is all your fault, for not wanting it desperately enough.

There is a very serious consequence to this mentality, when we try something and fail. Because we perceive that failure as a moral failing, it becomes rather easy to decide that we just don't want to try anymore - especially if we fail more than once. Conditioning can be crippling, even to people who have never shown signs of neurological disorders. Losing faith in oneself do very absolutely can and sometimes does break people. People commit suicide or slip into severe depression for a lot less than perceiving themselves a complete failure, unable manage that mythical, "what I wanted to be."

Then there is the very dangerous cousin, "you just need to think your way out of it, think your way past it." Like many people with neurological disorders, I have heard this one numerous times in my life, from many different people. Bad enough to hear it from family or friends who really don't understand or accept problems they cannot see. I would love to see damn near every psychotherapist who utters those words, or words to that effect, stripped of their licenses. Should they manage to kill a client with that kind of bullshit, I would love to see them prosecuted for it - and telling a severely depressed client, "you just need to think your way out of it," can be and sometimes is fatal.

Essentially telling someone who is severely depressed that it is their fault they are feeling this way, is a great way to send them into a major spiral. It is not uncommon for such spirals to bottom out into such despair that trying to continue to that next breath is inconceivable. And have no doubt, if you have never experienced it - there are times for a lot of people with neurological issues, especially those with mood disorders, when every breath is a struggle - a miserable eternity that you know it going to be repeated over...and over...and over again.

Loved ones do not make it any easier, when they try to push someone through this. It just isn't that simple. But when someone who is a licensed professional, someone who is trusted as a supposed expert on neurological issues does it, it is like telling them that this person who is trusting them to help them struggle through it is a failure. That it is their fault they are feeling like this. That if they really wanted to get better, they magically would be better. That is, to be clear, not likely what the therapist is trying to say. At least I should fucking hope not - though there are some ridiculously ignorant jackasses out there. But that is exactly what the client hears.

Lets think about getting past bullshit tropes that hurt people. Lets be realistic with our kids the way that the adults in the lives of my generation were not with us.

No, you can't be anything and everything you might want to be. You have innate talents that if you work hard to foster, will allow you to be good at what you really can do. If you work extra specially hard to foster those talents, you can even be great at what you do - though that doesn't always happen because life isn't always fair. And it is totally ok if you need some help along the way - all of us do really. It's just that some of us have brains that sometimes work against us. If you need medication to make it, that's ok. Getting cognitive therapy along with the meds is even better. No, you don't have to just think your way through it, because that is not how it works - unless you happen to have a very mild neurological issue.

Another thing to consider...A lot of substance abusers do so because they have failed too many times...

Kant's Rigid Moral Frame in Practice

In comments on my last post, everyone's favorite hater of atheists, Zdenny, was kind enough to express his distaste for non-rigid moral framing. He expressed the opinion that the reason atheists would not care for Kant's model for morality, was because we want to be able to do whatever we please. Aside from showing an abysmal ignorance - to be clear, a willful abysmal ignorance about athiests, it also shows a rather abysmal ignorance of Kant's model for morality. Unless of course he really does agree with Kant, in which case he follows a dogmatic form of Christianity that is patently unfamiliar to me.

Kant believed that any use of another person, was inherently immoral. One of the universal axioms he believed is absolute, is lying. No matter what the circumstances lying is inherently immoral and unacceptable. The facts of a given scenario are irrelevant, one should never lie.

An example that was discussed by Kant, was a scenario in which a friend is being sought by someone who wants to kill them. Said friend flees into a house to hide, while you are in front of the house. The person who wants to kill them comes and asks you if they are in the house. According to Kant, you cannot reasonably lie to that person. Because you cannot know for sure that the friend has stayed in the house to hide, you cannot say "no, s/he is not in the house," because that may well put the would be killer to searching outside where he may find the friend. The only reasonable response, not knowing for sure what the friend has actually done is to tell the would be killer you do not know.

So lets translate Kant's response to real historical situations. Situations in which Christians were quite thankfully not inclined to follow Kant's model for morality.

Some abolitionists of the nineteenth century created underground railroads to help escaped slaves find their way to safety, in territories where they would be welcomed to freedom. At many points these underground railroads were located in places where law enforcement was very keen on returning escaped slaves to the south, often to brutal beatings and sometimes hanging. Even in places that had a more neutral attitude, there were bands of bounty hunters who were often times rather brutal in their attempts to infiltrate underground railroads and cut off these pipelines. A great many of the abolitionists involved in these efforts were Christians who believed it was their God-given duty to lie and misdirect slavers and slave bounty hunters. No few of them were inclined to lie about their abolitionist beliefs, to draw attention away from their roles in the railroad. In a few recorded cases, people involved with the railroad actually infiltrated bands of bounty hunters seeking escaped slaves, so as to more effectively misdirect.

In Nazi Germany, when people had become more fully aware of what the Nazi's were doing to the Jews, a lot of people became involved in trying to get the Jews out of Germany safely. Like the underground slave railroad, they were hidden in houses and moved in secrecy, until they were safely out of Nazi controlled territories. And like the slave railroad, there were many times when people hiding and moving the Jews were questioned about it and many times they told lies to misdirect the Nazis. A great many of the people involved in this effort, like those involved with the slave railroad, were Christians. No few of them became rather vocal and ardent supporters of the pogrom, so that like the abolitionists, they could direct attention away from their attempts to save the lives of as many Jews as possible.

In both of these cases, not only were Christians involved in lying outright to misdirect, something that Kant would consider immoral in itself, there were a great many Christians who would live a lie in public, to draw attention away from themselves and their activities. And the interesting thing about this is, they have biblical examples from which to justify their actions. Early Christians were not very well accepted. Being a Christian meant risking imprisonment and even death. Early Christian leaders had to sneak about, to visit many of the cities they visited to minister to the local, hidden Christian populations. I daresay there were a great many hosts of Christian leaders who had to outright lie to guards, when they came to the door looking for said leaders. And while the early Christians may not have been terribly inclined to live an outright lie, they were certainly very keen on not admitting to their beliefs.

I could go on and on with this. There are numerous examples throughout history, of Christians lying to protect people. There were Christians who did so during the rise of Protestantism. There were Christians who did so when Martin Luther was calling for the slaughter of Jews. There were Christians who did so when churches schismed and violence was to follow. There were even Protestant Christians who lied to protect Catholic Christians and Catholic Christians who like to protect Protestant Christians in Ireland, in particular and a lot of other places where violence between the two groups was rife.

So ZDenny, while I am not a believer in universal moral axioms, not buying into Kant's model for morality, or that of the utilitarians, does not equal not buying into universal moral axioms. The moral framework of Christianity has traditionally understood that there are times when the consequences outweigh the intent. That the moral thing to do is to do what it takes to save lives and show others what Christian charity and love is really all about. When you support the rigidity of Kant, you are denigrating the memories of Christians from the time of Jesus to the present. You are denigrating the memories of Christians who risked and in innumerable cases sacrificed their lives for what they believed was the right way for Christians to live and to be a living witness for Christ.

When you support the rigidity of Kant, you are no different than the Sadducees and Pharisees who put their religion before their god.

Ethics and Objective Reality: Kant and the Utilitarians

My most recent essay for philosophy class. The assignment was to explain the views of Kant and the utilitarians in regards to morality and explain our preference.

Kant basically believed that ethics and morality were completely objective
and categorical imperatives. He believed that the facts of a given situation and the consequences of a given action were irrelevant to morality. The only imperative was the notion that using people, including oneself was immoral. That if an action is immoral or wrong in any given situation, no matter who might be involved in a given situation, then that action is universally and always immoral. He also believed that the intent was the thing. If your intention is to commit an immoral or unethical act, then the outcome is irrelevant – you have acted unethically.

The utilitarians, on the other hand, believed that the consequences of an action are all that matters. In their case, the intent is irrelevant, it is the outcome that atters. They also believe that morality is that which produces the greatest good, or the greatest number of people. Quantitative and qualitative pleasures, whether they are physical or intellectual are a moral good. Denying people those pleasures is immoral. Ensuring that as many people as possible have those pleasures is a moral good.

If forced to choose between just these two models for morality, I would have to say that the utilitarians make the most sense. Kant was just too rigid and stolid. The notion that one can ignore the consequences of a given action, in determining whether it is moral or not is absurd. While the utilitarian conception is rather rigid as well, it doesn't completely ignore the facts of a given situation. There is room to try to determine what the most positive outcome for the most people might be, when determining a course of action in a given situation. If one must ignore the facts, ignore the outcome, then there is truly nothing moral about a given decision.

Of course the problem with the utilitarian model is that it to is too rigid. If a conception of morality is to have any value whatever, then it must be as an arbitrator for competing factions of the mind. A personal moral frame, developed by ones experience of life, the influence of their culture and constantly being questioned and reexamined at every turn, is the only conception of morality that can have any value. If morality is not the ultimate intrapersonal governor of one's actions, then it is nothing more than dogma with external enforcement. If, on the other hand, morality is internalized and owned by the individual, questioned by the individual and reexamined with every internal conflict, then morality becomes a profoundly powerful governor of an individual's actions and decisions.

Dogma simply doesn't provide the force of will that is necessary to reasonably force one to do what it right. Dogma cannot force someone to make the right decision, when no external enforcement mechanisms can be applied. For example, if one wants to enjoy a particular food item and they are certain they can get away with stealing it from the home of someone they know is away from home, but they cannot afford to buy it themselves, dogma is far less likely to cause them to decide that it would be wrong to steal it. A moral frame that they have absolute ownership of, on the other hand, is far more able to force them to refrain from stealing that item. If they believe it is wrong, because that is what they have determined to be true through due consideration of their experience in life and of their culture, then they simply cannot steal that food – even without any external enforcement mechanism to keep their behavior in check.

The only moral absolute that makes any sense at all, that creates an outcome of any value, is that morality must be determined by the individual through due consideration of their life experience and their cultural experience.

Animal Rights Extremists Are At It Again (Updated again)

Just to be sure I am very clear, I do not believe that all animal rights activists are terrorists or extremists. I make three distinctions that are very important. First are the activists - people who engage in peaceful protest and sometimes in peaceful civil disobedience. They belong in the very reasonable category of activist, even though I believe they are wrong. Then there are the extremists, people who do not engage in, but who advocate violence and other terror tactics. And finally there are the terrorists - people who engage in terror tactics. There is a great deal of difference between activism and the latter two categories, while there is only a fine line between the last two. When I am writing about animal rights issues, I am generally not talking about the activists, except insofar as I am talking about something they believe in too.

I just received an email from the David Jentsch PhD, of the organization Pro-Test. Apparently some animal rights extremist web sites have noticed the petition that, if you have yet to sign, you should absolutely sign now. While they do not publicize your personal information, your name does appear and some extremists are now doing searches for information on signatories and harassing us.

Yesterday, a few websites hosted by animal rights activists have encouraged their readerships to visit the list of Pro-Test signatories in order to find names and to contact those persons to express their opposition to animal research. While your email addresses on the RaisingVoices.net website are secure and not publicly listed, the animal rights groups encourage people to use the wide array of Internet tools to find contact information and to use it.

I just got a response to a request for the specific sites involved; The websites "Negotiation Is Over" and "Thomas Paines Corner," have simulposted a piece entitled; "Pro-Test Was Kind Enough to Provide a Directory of Vivisectors." Please be warned that these are extremist hate sites.

David Jentsch was one of the growing ranks of scientists who happen to do research that involves animals, to be attacked by these terrorists, in March of this year. Unlike many of the victims of these attacks - ten on UCLA professors in the past three years, Dr. Jentsch decided that enough was enough and taking the cue from colleagues in the UK, Pro-Test came to the U.S.

As many of you know, I am an ardent opponent of terrorism, regardless of the cause they claim to support. Over the last several months I have tangled with animal rights extremists online, on several occasions. They sometimes pay lip service to opposing these terrorist fucking bastards, but it is more than a little obvious that they have a great deal of sympathy and some have outright appreciation for their actions. I have been vaguely threatened by a couple of these assholes and expect to be in the future.

Terrorism is - always is inexcusable. I have denounced terrorism in the name of environmental issues, losing friends in the process. I have denounced terrorism among the Palestinians - again, losing friends in the process. And I have denounced terrorism for animal rights - and refused to join protests at OHSU, yet again, losing friends in the process. I was told by some of those same animal rights extremist friends, that I am evil. That I am disgusting and my support of animal testing is little different than offering my children for experimentation. I was told that karma would come back on me for being such a horrible fucking person.

Makes me wish there was such a thing as karma, because I am pretty sure that some scumbag who firebombed someone's car, terrorized someone else's family, blowing up labs and generally terrorizing people - intimidating people to get them to do what the want - they would have some serious repercussions for that. And now these people are out to intimidate some more - over the internets no less. Well, good on them for letting us know that our efforts - small as they may be on the parts of many of us, are not in vain. It is nice to know that they are displeased and feel the need to try to stop us from apposing their extremist and often terrorist agenda.

So please, if you have not signed, now is the time to lend your support. Let these vile cretins know that you support science, you support medicine, you support a better understanding of disease, you support new medicines and improving old ones.

Let them know you support a better future for your parents, your children, your grandchildren, your friends - yourself. Let them know you support the scientists who are helping make that better future and will not tolerate violence against them.

BDSM, Discomfort and Learning

Stephanie points to a post at Vagina Dentata that in turn points to a post at another blog I rather like (though rarely make it over to read), Spanked, not Silenced. I am not really going to discuss the post at SnS, which you should really go read anyways. Suffice to say that I am appalled and would like to encourage any of my readers who is a gamer to avoid EA games and to possibly write them and tell them why you think they fucking suck ass. I have done so, but as a total non-gamer, it is a rather pointless gesture...

What I would love to get into here, is Naomi's very interesting reaction to Pandora's post. You would do well to stop now, open her post in another tab and comeback after you read what she has to say about it.

Now I’ve read a couple of blogs by sexually submissive feminists (such as the very good Girl With a One Track Mind) and it’s something I’m really trying to get my head around. It seems counter-intuitive to me because my instinct is to encourage women to be powerful and assertive against a historical backdrop of oppression. But this blogger dresses up in chool uniforms and other costumes, and is spanked, dominated, tied-up and sexually submissive.

Assuming you have read her post, you will understand that she addresses her discomfort - a discomfort that I would argue is really quite healthy. I think we need to be uncomfortable when we are challenged. Not because it is fun, but because working through that discomfort is always a good teacher.

What I don't think that Naomi really addresses to a strong degree, is that women being powerful and assertive while also being sexually submissive are not mutually exclusive. First of all, submissive does not equal powerless. To the contrary, subs have very strict control over their situation (there are extremists who forgo safeties, but they are exceptional in BDSM and usually are men). They have an equal say in the rules before the fact and they have absolute control over the situation. I would even go as far as to say that subs actually have rather more control than your average sexual partner. The rules are generally very firmly established beforehand in a way that few casual couplings would even think about and in a way that few enough established couples ever really discuss. For most couples the preferences of their partners are learned as they go and often enough there are things that never really get established.

What is definitely unfeminist, is a feminist telling another woman how to have sex and what she can and can’t get her kicks out of. I want my feminism to include, for example, those women who have a gendered analysis of the world, they campaign for women’s rights, they challenge people’s everyday sexism and yet they're also down with consensual arse-slapping.

Sexuality is way too easy a target for some people. Growing up in U.S. culture makes it really easy for folks to have a visceral reaction to kink that doesn't happen to be their kink. The thing that a thoughtful person has to keep in mind, is that one's sexuality is not generally reflective of their identity outside the context of sex. I have all sorts of fetishes - though I am pretty vanilla for the most part. The thing is, my kink really isn't relevant outside the context of my sex life and sometimes discussions about sex. That someone might happen to like to be spanked, smacked around, disparaged horribly or otherwise abused, does not make them somehow less of a man or women. It just happens to be something that gets them off and probably also has some psychotherapeutic value.

If you are still having some difficulty wrapping your head around the idea that women who are sexually submissive, can also be strong feminist voices, consider the following questions. Would you ever even think about questioning the right of a women to call herself a feminist, simply because she is a heterosexual? Or because she prefers other women? How about because is just totally nuts over her sex toy collection? Can she be a feminist if she just really doesn't like sex at all, alone or with a partner? How about if she really likes sex in the great outdoors? I think that there are very few people indeed, who would argue that anything on that list could preclude a women from being a feminist and those who would are fringe loons. So why then would you consider it unfeminist for a women to have a sexual preference for being dominated?

The counter argument is: these women are perpetuating rape myths, they’re playing out their own internalised misogyny and they are making it harder for other women who are fighting against patriarchy. I simply do not think that this is true.

In this specific context, I cannot give a large enough and resounding enough call of BullShit! Not to Naomi's response, but to the expressed sentiment. What makes it harder for other women is paternalistic maternalistic busybodies, who want to tell everyone what to do and how to act. How exactly is this any different than any other misogynist telling women how they should be acting and where their place is? How is this any different than the extra scrutiny that still happens in many workplaces, because the work is being produced by a women? This is an example of becoming the object of contention, to fight the object of contention. "We'll never get anywhere, if we act like that" just puts us right back where we started.

Moreover, this is a major sticky issue with identity politics across the board. Blaming a member of the out group, for being a bad representative of that group. Or even worse, being a member of the outgroup and judging every single thing you do, in terms of the implications as a representative of that group. This is not to say there may not be contexts in which this position is valid. But it is absolutely absurd to act like any one person can be held responsible for how they make that group look. I'm a caucasian male. Is anybody going to seriously claim that when I was a rather extreme substance abuser, that my substance abuse reflected poorly on white dudes? Is anybody going to say with a straight face, that my rather extreme philandering when I was a tad younger makes beige guys look bad?

Oh wait, there are very similar pressures exerted on men too. There are people who would claim that I have reflected poorly on other men - maybe not because of the philandering, that is after all, an archetypal masculine ideal. And I am sure that the substance abuse wouldn't be a problem - at least if I would just shut the fuck up about my addiction issues already. But I have committed some cardinal sins of man. I have questioned and probed into social conceptions of gender. I have no problem whatever, telling my male friends that I love them, if the situation call for such intimate validations. I am not the least squicked out about homosexuality - I have even experimented myself. And I have been known to wear clothes that usually only women wear - like skirts and stuff.

There are several other flavors of folks who would judge men, in relation to my personal actions. Or who would just be horrified that I do things that reflect poorly on them. I think I will just wander to the other end of the spectrum. Guys who are horrified that I would be the least bit critical of women - especially self styled feminists. It is, after all, none of my fucking business. Men who are horrified by the idea that I regularly hold doors for women (and other men often enough) or that I quite often will open the passenger door for my lovely girlfriend. Men who whimper at the notion that I have on occasion, been a bit of a pugilist. How could I be such an insensitive and brutish bastard?

So fuck all, I guess that it actually does count if you're a white male. Just not quite the same way it does if you happen to be sporting a uterus. And not even close to the same way it does if you are the member of an out group, say non-beige, queer, a damned foreigner...

Naomi has a lot more to talk about, so if you haven't stopped over there, do it NOW!!!!

Moral Relativism and Responsibility Part Two: Culture and the Ind

In the last post we briefly explored the relativistic nature of morality in the context of time and space. In this post we will explore it in the context of culture and the individual.

It can be difficult to separate space and culture in relation to moral relativism, because the context of space always includes culture. So I am going to use an example that includes only culture, making the context of space pretty much irrelevant. For this next foray, we will discuss the general social mores of gang culture. I think this is a reasonable example because it is a culture that exists within larger cultural contexts, yet remains relatively consistent in and of itself. Specifically we will explore U.S. urban gang culture.

For anyone who has lived in areas with high levels of gang activity, it is easy to simply dismiss gang bangers as immoral, unethical criminal thugs. Indeed I would be hard pressed to disagree, as my own moral framework precludes many of the activities that are common within gang banger culture. From the perspective of our generalized cultural mores, gang bangers are a pretty nasty bunch who, in their blatant disregard for people who aren't involved in their stupid, deadly games are very bad people - immoral people. But that does not mean they are not operating within the confines of any moral frame. Indeed, given the illicit nature of many of their activities, their general social mores are considerably more restrictive than those of the larger cultural contexts in which they live and act. And the social consequences for acting outside that framework are brutal. Rather than simply being marginalized by their peers, becoming an object of disdain, a gang banger is more likely to be severely beaten, possibly killed. And it doesn't necessarily stop there. Their family and/or close friends may also be at risk for retaliation.

There is some overlap of course. From my own perspective, I think it is blatantly immoral for someone who gets busted with a bag of cannabis to tell the police where they got it. My own reaction is not to kill the person or beat them, but at the same time, I am not going to be terribly upset if they get their ass kicked. I firmly believe that one should take ownership of their own choices and that it is immoral to push their consequences off onto someone else. But gang bangers tend to take that concept much further - it doesn't matter what the crime is, or even who committed it. You simply cannot talk to the police about it. Doesn't matter if it was your worst enemy, doesn't matter if the crime was raping someone and beating them to death - you cannot tell the authorities. If it is bad enough - offensive enough, then you deal with the perpetrator yourself or with some help from your fellow gang members. It is simply unacceptable to narc. The only possible exception would be something that is too egregious to ignore and too much to deal with, such as terrorism. But the exceptions would be rare and extreme. In general, the consequences of talking out of turn are severe and often permanent.

There is also a strong emphasis placed on taking care of your own. Another concept that is quite conducive to my own moral framework. The difference is the extreme it is taken to. I am not inclined to kick the crap out of somebody or shoot them, because they talked shit about my best friend. Gang bangers take this basic concept to a dangerous and from my perspective immoral extreme. They aren't inclined to worry about collateral damage when it comes to settling scores. What must take precedence at all cost, is vengeance and protecting their space - if there is some random innocent person in the way, too bad they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The key though, is that from their perspective they are operating from the context of their general cultural mores. And the individuals within that cultural context generally mold their moral framework to function within that context. While from our perspective, it would be perfectly reasonable to call the police and give a statement if we had the misfortune to witness a murder, from theirs it is immoral to do so. To them, any situation that would require they talk to the police about a crime would be a serious and significant moral dilemma.

With that, we come to the individual. By this point you may have noticed a pattern - that culture encompasses space, which in turn encompasses time. So it shouldn't be surprising that the individual encompasses all of these. Coming to the individual, we come to the most finite context of all - though even that can be broken down further by time, space and culture. The individual is not static. We mature as we move through time and if we are even the tiniest bit introspective, our moral framework evolves as we age. And many people change their space, moving to a different environment that will have an impact on their moral frame. Likewise, some of us also change our cultural context to some degree or another. A good example of this is my ability to relate to the notion of not talking to the cops about certain things - this was not the result of the culture in which I was raised, to any strong degree. This was the result of my having spent many years in a subculture that found certain types of illicit behavior acceptable - mostly in regards to illicit drugs. It actually contradicts to some degree my upbringing, which would not discourage one from reporting illicit activities. Though there was a supporting moral premise that one should accept responsibility for their choices, so that is not an absolute.

An example that I used in the thread over at Dispatches, is the death penalty. I like this one because I think it very nicely breaks through the surface agreement that two individuals respective moral frames might have and delves into the moral reasoning that produces the same outcome. Like many people I know, I am morally opposed to the death penalty. I am not apposed to it for the same reason that a lot of people I know are. I have a great many friends who believe that the state should never take the life of a criminal, under any circumstances. I rather fervently disagree with the moral calculus they use to oppose the death penalty. I don't believe that it is the least bit immoral for the state to execute people who are guilty of certain crimes. There are crimes that I fervently believe are reprehensible enough to warrant the execution of the guilty party. The moral calculus that brings me to so voraciously oppose the death penalty, is the risk that people who are not guilty of a capital offense might be executed for one. I simply cannot accept that any perceived benefit of capital punishment is worth the risk.

So the outcome of the calculus is exactly the same - both my friends who believe absolutely nothing could excuse state sanctioned execution and I come to the same conclusion. But there is more than a little bit of difference in how we get there. It is not a simple matter of nuance. We have a full fledged and extreme difference of opinion that is only made irrelevant by the fact that a strong enough certainty of guilt to satisfy my moral sensibility is virtually impossible and rare enough that I don't think it is worth executing those few and having the capital option on the table at all. If it were hypothetically possible to determine absolutely, the guilt or innocence of everyone convicted of certain crimes, I would have absolutely no qualms about the state executing them.

This very naturally leads to the question of the imposition of any person's moral framework on society as a whole. If there are no universal objective moral truths, then how can anyone justify imposing their moral frames on anyone else - even if a lot of people take very similar moral positions? The short answer is that we simply can't. There is never a reasonable justification for imposing one's moral frame on anyone else, with the possible exception of parents imposing their moral frame on their children. But even that is not an entirely reasonable proposition. The most important and to some degree the only purpose of morality, is as a governor of an individuals own behavior. Morality transcends law, social conventions, the environment in which one is raised and all cultural considerations, when it comes to any person's daily decision making processes. It is the single most profound control of our behaviors, our innate sense of what is right and wrong.

That is not to say that laws, social conventions, the environment in which we were raised and cultural considerations don't also play a part in our decision making - indeed all of those things provide a profound influence on the development of our moral frames. It is just that none of those things can have the absolute impact on our decisions, that our moral frame has. Our moral frame is why we choose to do what is right, even if we are quite certain we could get away with doing something we believe is wrong. It is why, for example, I couldn't just walk into a book store and slip that copy of The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome into my briefcase, even if no one is looking. It is not the fear of consequences - I am pretty sure that if I actually tried, I could get away with it. It is my moral belief that it is inexcusable to steal something that I can live without that stops me.

So where then do - or should laws come from, if not from some universal or simply objective moral truth? In point of fact, they should come from what is determined to be the best way for people to behave within a society, for making that society a reasonable place for everyone who lives within it. We don't need morality to tell us that a society that allows people to gun each other down in the street, is not going to be a very reasonable one to live in. We don't need morality to tell us that allowing rape will make a society untenable for most of those who make up that society. We don't need morality to tell us that allowing people to steal from others is going to make society rather chaotic and unpleasant. We can debate the definitions of murder and manslaughter. I don't believe, for example, that shooting someone who has invaded your home with clearly nefarious intent is the least bit immoral - yet there are plenty of situations in many states where doing so is illegal. There are gray areas when it comes to rape as well - is it rape when a man (or women) applies a great deal of verbal pressure, until the other person acquiesces? I don't happen to think so (though I could see contexts in which it would) but there are those who feel that no should be the end of it and any questioning or pressure after that - no matter what, constitutes rape if the other person gives in. And while I am not one to countenance theft or suggest that it should be legal, I do believe that the context of a theft determines it's morality and legally speaking should be taken into account. I am not inclined to think that someone who steals food in a desperate attempt to feed his or her family is being immoral.

I do however, tend to perceive many aspects of my moral frame as objectively true. This is not to be confused with believing that any aspect of my moral frame is a universal objective truth. There may be aspects of my moral frame for which I have a hard time conceiving of a context that would make them moral or at least not immoral. There are many aspects of my moral frame that I believe are absolute within my cultural context. But this is my opinion, nothing more and nothing left. This is my opinion, which forms the core of that which arbitrates my conception of right and wrong. It is that which prevents me from beating or killing someone, merely because they made me so very intensely angry - even if I was certain I could avoid legal repercussions. While there are a lot of people within my culture who have very similar moral positions on many of the things that I do, they are still nothing more than our opinions. What stretches beyond out relative opinions on issues such as equality, slavery, murder, rape and theft are laws. Unfortunately, sometimes laws are produced that are based on morality, rather than on the basis that they make for a better society for more of the population. It is almost inevitable that when laws are made that reflect morality, rather than a reasoned attempt to make society function more smoothly, they are going to unreasonably restrict the rights of some people.

In part three, I will discuss further the differentiation of perceiving one's morality objectively and universal objective moral truths, because that was tripping someone up on Ed's blog, so I imagine that I need to be especially clear on that point. The person who was seeing a contradiction there, Fortuna, is probably a pretty bright person, so I can only assume that this is going to confuse a lot of people - probably because of a failure on my part. So I will definitely explore this in somewhat greater detail. And I will wrap it up with a discussion about what I see as the responsibilities of the moral relativist - and indeed anyone - to constantly reexamine their moral frame and their motivations, their moral calculus.

And I promise, if there is anyone left reading this at this point, that I will do my best to make it as interesting as possible.

Autism, Racism, Menstruation and More!!!!

You may have noticed the last couple of posts happen to be rather innocuously and generically titled "Library Unit X: Cultural Anthropology. As I was going through and finishing these short papers, it occurred to me that the assignment as given, produces short papers that are not unlike blog posts - in fact they are a lot like blog posts. Or at least they are like blog posts that I would produce if I didn't say fuck with some regularity...

The assignment was to read seven articles and write a two page paper about each, summarizing the article, tying it to something we discussed in class and providing our response to it. It was not meant to be formal, instead being more about how each article made us feel - what we gleaned from it, how it changed our perspective or if it did. As it occurred to me that I was writing papers that would make decent blog posts, it also occurred to me that I am exceedingly busy and unable to write much. So I have a total of seven of these papers and wanted to throw this post in there to make sure that there was something to reference them, that has a less generic title - especially before I post the next one, which happens to delve into a rather more important issue.

I didn't make the next one the first one I posted, because I wanted to have a moment to draw some attention to it and the fact that this anthropology class has done rather a lot to further alter my attitude about certain aspects of primitive cultures and the West. I have long held the understanding that primitive does not equal savage and uncivilized. But that attitude has evolved considerably over the course of this cultural anthropology class. Because I am learning that one, these primitives are in many ways far more "civilized" than those of us in the West and two, I am not nearly as "enlightened" and close to free of bigotry as I thought I was. This is not to say that I didn't accept that I had some underlying bigoted undertones - it is a rare person in the West who doesn't. But I thought I was pretty good about that sort of thing.

In the next post, which will probably go up later this morning or sometime this afternoon, I will delve into the systemic bigotry of Western society. In the paper, I was not terribly clear and wanted to clear it up here, just as I intend to clear it with my instructor. When I describe the arrogant culturalist tendencies of Westerners - I am absolutely not trying to exclude myself from that picture. Because even though this class has sent me a little bit further in the right direction, I am a product of my culture and all that entails - the good, the bad and the exceedingly arrogant.

Who Are You? I'm _____ and _____'s papa.

I have a facebook profile, like many people do. And like many other people (I imagine) I use it very sporadically. I don't like to really use it for much more than reconnecting with people I spent several years with, ambling from classroom to classroom. I like to occasionally post something there that identifies the adult me, but for the most part my profile just gets neglected.

I also do something I've noticed a lot of the people I spent those many formative years do. I don't have a profile picture that readily identifies what I look like today. Not because I'm particularly unattractive (though I am definitely not the pretty boy I was in school), but because there are two aspects of my adult identity that are not only much cuter than I, they are also far more important to me, than showing off my own mug.

I really love it when my old comrades in education tell me how damned cute my boys are and how amazed they are that I actually reproduced. Or at least that I reproduced outside the context of a broken condom type accident. Some would be blown away that I managed monogamy - not for months, but for years. I really love the fact that there are several others who ambled those halls with me, who were given similar probabilities for reproducing, who also proudly feature their children in their profile picture.

While my children haven't subsumed my entire identity, they have certainly added to it. And what they have added to who I am, is the most important part of who adult DuWayne is. And should my boys make the choices that lead that way, someday I expect that the addition of grandpapa will share a similarly important addition to the identity of DuWayne.

It's not infrequent, that I am identified as "Eldest's papa." Much rarer, because he's still very small, I am also identified as "Youngest's papa." And you know something? I am no less DuWayne for being identified otherwise. In fact, I would go as far as saying that I'm much more DuWayne for being identified as my children's papa. I am proud to wear the mantle of papa, proud to be my children's dad.

I am proud to have my children prominently featured in my facebook profile picture. Sure I'm there - those of my readers who have become my facebook friend can attest. But they can also attest that you can't really see my face, because I'm crawling after youngest, while eldest is riding on my back.

Yesterday I was directed by Drugmonkey, to a post on this topic, written by Sheril Kershenbaum. A certain Katie Roiphe (I am not linking to her article, because I suspect that CPP's comment is dead on) seems to think that posting pictures of one's children as one's profile picture is horribly antithetical to feminism. At least it is if you happen to have carried said child inside your uterus for nine months - she really doesn't mention us papas and dads who do the same thing. Presumably if we do it, it really doesn't hurt feminism. Katie seems to think that women posting pictures of their kids instead of themselves, implies that their identity is thus subsumed by archetypal female social gender constructs. She doesn't actually use those terms, but that is certainly the implication.

Drugmonkey maintains that more men should do this, to normalize this kind of behavior and make it more reasonable for everyone to do it without gender bias entering the equation. The concern he raises about this approach is valid - i.e. that it will just be a way for us men types to look more progressive, but I think it falls short of the depth of the problem...

While I am the last person to say that men shouldn't be a strong part of tearing down gender disparity, I believe that the approach described by DM is problematic, because it presupposes that only if more men do this, is it going to be reasonable for women to do it as well. The implication is rather antithetical to feminism.

There should be absolutely nothing wrong with us men types saying loud and clear - with our actions and if asked about it, with our words; it's ok for men to do things that fall under the purview of traditional femininity. Women shouldn't stop doing things that would seemingly promote gender bias - choosing not to do something because one is afraid of looking too feminine, is far more antithetical to feminism, than making the choices you make because you want to. Rather, men should take action and do things that we want to do - even if they're "feminine" things to do.

Deconstructing gender means not making choices based on gender. This is just as true when it means women focusing on careers, men staying home with the kids, as it is when it means women wearing make-up and men going hunting. Deciding not to do something because it would seemingly reinforce archetypal gender constructs, is no different than choosing to do something you would rather not do, simply to maintain archetypal gender constructs.

Basing any decision on gender constructs, is absolutely antithetical to deconstructing gender and ending gender disparity.

Happy Stephanie Z Day!!! (or Why Creationism and Faith are often Arational)

Greg has declared yesterday Stephanie Zyvan day and since I don't have something of hers to repost (Lucky Greg), I will have to write a smart blogpost. I haven't been terribly motivated lately, choosing instead to get some posts I am going to write outlined, while also trying to frantically get some paying jobs done before classes start Monday.

Actually, that for some reason reminded me of something Scicurious (it was also Sciday!!!) inspired me to mention...Not that I'm trying to hint or anything, but man do I love getting books in the mail. I mean I really love getting books - and if they happen to come from the author of the book - maybe with the authors signature, why I would have to write up the book and tell everyone how much it rocks...

And apparently today is Jason Thibeault day...I think that that calls for some cake - some inappropriate, even naughty cakes...(as in, don't click that link at work, or in front of your grandma (unless you have a really cool grandma))

And because I can, I love her and she did actually contribute to this post, by discussing the topic with me for quite a while, I will declare this Juniper month. She really deserves more than a day. I mean hell, she puts up with me, loves me and as an atheist, I can't put her up for sainthood.


So onward to the heart of it...

John Wilkins is possibly the very smartest ape the world has ever seen. Either that, or he's just better at expressing himself than most members of his species. In any case, he recently had a very interesting paper published about creationism and rationality. I think that it is quite reasonable to extend the logic of his position to Faith in general, rather than limiting it to a single facet of that faith.

But for my purposes, creationism is actually a very good example, because arational creationism has a counterpart amongst those who accept evolution...Yes, yes it does and I am actually going to start with that counterpart...

There are a lot of people who have very interesting ideas about evolution and they're not all creationists. There are, for example, a lot of folks who pretty much assume that On the Origin of the Species is basically the best explanation of how evolution occurs. Survival of the fittest is basically how many, if not most people would characterize the theory of evolution. While we can give such people kudos for not buying into the idea that some god zapped everything into being, they are in fact wrong and difference in their ignorance of origins is only a matter of degrees of difference from the ignorance of creationists.

Does this ignorance make such people irrational? I would argue that it does not, it merely makes them ignorant. And I would also argue that the same is true of many creationists. The fact is that most people really don't spend much, if any time thinking about human origins or science in general. I would daresay that more people think about politics than science and in the U.S. at least, most people don't seem to think much about politics either. Most people struggle to focus enough on work and their interpersonal relationships - politics is barely on their radar if it is at all and science is nothing more than a peripheral concern I.e. "how does current science affect me?"

Even today, in the twenty first century, science education is abysmal in the U.S., especially when it comes to talking about evolution. There are many locations where the teaching about evolution is minimal or ignored altogether - whether because the teacher is afraid of dealing with pissed off parents or school boards, or because the teacher doesn't believe evolution explains where we come from. And your average fundamentalist is having their Faith and dogma constantly reinforced, while any discussion about evolution is dismissed as liberal, atheistic propaganda, or even the work of Satan.

So it works out as really easy for people to grow up believing what their Faith and the dogma of their faith has to say about origins and dismissing the little they may have heard about evolution as evil lies. About the only creationists who are really likely to change, are those who have a casual interest in understanding how the world works and who aren't ready to believe that Satan makes it appear that evolution happened.

But is it really reasonable to expect them too? Like I said, most non-creationists have little, if any understanding of how evolution happens because it simply doesn't really matter to them. Why would creationists be a whole lot different. They know how the world came into being - they learned it when they were young, had it reinforced throughout their lives and had people they trust explaining why evolution is really evilution. About their only hope is to have a science class with a teacher who actually understands evolution, isn't afraid to teach it, has a smart-ass in their class who wants to throw creationism out there and a teacher who isn't afraid to address the smart-ass's comments - oh, and said student would also need to be paying attention...

Most people are simply not going to go looking into this on their own. They aren't going to really look into anything that might contradict what they have believed their whole life. They aren't doing it maliciously either - nor are they attempting to wallow in ignorance. They are mostly just living their lives like anyone else - not really giving a shit about anything outside their cosy little world.

They are no more irrational than people who believe that evolution is survival of the fittest, that evolution means we descended from apes or monkeys that are just like the ones we can see at the zoo. It is not particularly rational, rather it is neither rational nor irrational - ignorant is a considerably more accurate label. And there are even cases where not believing in creationism would be highly irrational - especially when we are talking about children, who truly know nothing else. When you know nothing else, is it remotely rational to decide what you know to be true isn't? There was a time in my own life when it would have been pretty irrational for me to deny the Genesis story of creation.

Given the prevalence of religion in the U.S., unless you are young or non-American, odds are that there was such a time for you as well...

Prosecute the Officials Who Ordered Torture, not the Operatives Who Followed Their Orders

There has been a lot of discussion about the Obama administrations release of the torture memos and the decision not to prosecute the operatives who actually engaged in torture. The two that I've been involved in the most, is this one at Greg Laden's blog and this one at Dispatches.

Let me be very clear before I continue, as many folks seem to be making assumptions about my position that couldn't be further from the truth.

1) I do not condone torture - at all.
2) I do not want to leave operatives with the notion that they should commit acts of torture in the future, if they are ordered to.
3) I absolutely want to see the DOJ investigate and I want to see officials that made the legal recommendations, the officials who counseled the Bush administration and those who gave the orders to torture go to prison.
More...
The bottom line however (to borrow a phrase from Comrade Physio Prof), is that we do not live in a world that resembles a fucking care-bear picnic. While I absolutely do not want to see our intelligence operatives engaging in torture, I also don't want them to be put into a position where they will have to argue the law with officials who tell them to do something and make it clear to them that it is legal for them to do so. Intelligence operatives have to do a lot of things that are morally and legally dubious - and sometimes we need them to do those things.

Indeed, sometimes we need them to do things that are pretty clearly illegal - something that should be prosecuted in court and for which they should then be pardoned, unless it is found that they committed an egregious abuse that was either unnecessary or was outside their purview of protecting national security. I basically would consider the court proceedings an additional level of oversight that requires operatives to justify their actions and provide an accounting of why they felt it was necessary to operate outside the law.

I believe in the rule of law, but also recognize that there may arise occasions when the law would prevent intelligence operatives from preventing clear and present dangers to our national security, to the security of our allies, or the security of civilian populations of our enemies. Breaking the law should not be common, nor should actions that do be taken lightly. But pretending that there are never situations where breaking the law is not justified is complete and utter fucking bullshit.

Most importantly though, there are a lot of situations where the law is not so explicit and arguments could be made either way. Not to mention actions that while not necessarily illegal, would tax the conscience of most people. We need to make it clear to the operatives who are doing their damnedest to keep us safe, that they can follow orders given, without fear that we will turn around and decide that since the lawyers and officials who gave those orders were wrong, we must prosecute the operatives who followed those orders.

Now it's easy for you and me to say that this wasn't the least bit unclear. It's really easy to assume that the interrogators who engaged in acts of torture are just sadistic fucking bastards who get off on hurting people - and you know, I wouldn't argue that some of them probably qualify. But we aren't those people, people who we have trained to think and act differently than you or I would act. We push these people to the very limits and sometimes encourage them to go beyond, because what they do - what we need them to do sometimes requires skirting that line.

Rather than prosecuting them, we need to take steps to ensure that this never happens again. First and foremost, we need to make it clear to the people who gave the orders, the architects of this torture, that what they did was a crime against humanity. That if they are found guilty, they will go to prison. In effect, we need to ensure that the folks in power in the future, will never give these sorts of orders again. That they can and will be prosecuted if it is found that they ordered operatives to commit criminal acts. Second, we need to create fundamental interrogation guidelines that make it clear where the line is and make it clear that if this line is crossed, the operative who does will be prosecuted and punished, to the full extent of the law.

It is not easy to simply say that these folks should be let off of this. I am pretty certain that there are operatives who are sadistic fucks who wanted to do this. But I think that it's far more important to avoid sending operatives the message that they cannot simply trust the folks giving the orders, not to fuck them and leave them open to prosecution.

Indeed.

I am rather up and down about reading Pharyngula. I really enjoy many of the posts, but one of the pleasures of blogs is discussing what's been said and that is kind of strange over there. Which is, in turn, kind of strange coming from me - because I'm kind of an asshole a lot of the time. But I really enjoy a lot of Paul's posts and wander on over once in a while. This post rather struck me, especially the following:

This is what religion is: they angle for fresh prey, and once they snag you, they swallow you up. You are embraced in the rugae and crypts of the gut of the church, all warm and pink and soft and wet and intimate, and each of the members is like a little villus — a multitude of villi brush adoringly against you, each telling you how wonderful and delicious you are, and each leeching away a little of yourself, your individuality, your independence. It feels good as you are slowly absorbed. Then at last, when your will is gone and your dependence is complete, you are digested by the body of Christ, and there you will be for all of your productive years. Eventually, when you are old and no longer active, you'll take residence in the colon of the church, serviced by occasional visits from a priest or a volunteer, in hopes of one final ka-ching from your will…and then your empty husk will be shat out into the church graveyard, with the leavings of other past meals. The churches of your community all ought to be viewed as predatory animals, some lazy and sated, others restless and hungry, but all eyeing you as potential fodder to keep the beast alive.

Even a year ago, it is likely that I would have actually argued about this. But the argument would not really have been an argument that this is inaccurate, it would have been an argument of motivations. And the thing is, the motivations are still there - the point is still valid, but it doesn't actually refute a damned thing written in that paragraph.

The fact of the matter is, as is the case with most other woo - the victimizers are also the victims. Yes, there are a great many scam artists and pretenders - in the clergy and congregations. But there are also a whole lot of Christians out there who are honestly and earnestly seeking to save you from what they believe will be your eternal damnation and suffering. They truly believe that if you don't go to church, follow the dogma and believe/worship who and how they do - you're going to suffer horribly.

I know how they feel, I've felt it - I've been in those shoes. I was ok with being mocked, because I knew that what I had to say could go somewhere someday. If my small part to play eventually led to their salvation from eternal suffering, well, who cares about a little mockery at my expense? I know how they feel, because I spent years with an underlying terror that my own dad and eventually my brother were going to hell.

This makes it very difficult for some people to withstand the deluge. If you haven't read the whole of PZ's piece, do so. He describes a couple of situations, one written about by one of his readers and one that happened to him. I have been that proselytizing jackass, astounded that someone could be so blind to the obvious. I mean it really did seem so obvious to me and it was very confusing when people just didn't see it after I explained it all.

I was very good at helping bring people into my Faith, because I was so very genuine. Because no matter the sorts of mischief I got into - and I got into a lot - I genuinely cared about other people and really wanted them to avoid eternal suffering. I was obviously imperfect, yet entirely confident that my god loved me anyways and it was all ok in the end. I was trying and that was what mattered. That and I genuinely cared about the people I was proselytizing to - and it showed. That showering love fest that PZ describes is entirely accurate, but it's also far more nefarious for being genuine.

I feel genuinely sad for many of the people I went to church with who know that I am not a Christian. They genuinely love me and also believe absolutely that I am going to suffer eternal damnation if I don't accept their Faith. Even worse is my mom, who obviously loves me and wants me to avoid the eternal suffering that she believes is what people who do not Believe will suffer.

But it just is what it is - and isn't what so many Believe it is.

I am still working on my first post about things that kept me holding desperately onto my faith. But I think this actually can qualify as a prelude of sorts, because it was the loving community that made it very hard to leave - not to mention the disappointment of a great many loved ones.

I am going to continue with the post I was actually writing, but honestly can't say how quickly it will come. I have actually been doing things that aren't school or writing and have to get school stuff done too. And focusing is still a huge pain in the ass - exhausting even.

Speaking of, it is way past my damned bedtime - goodnight...