A Newly Minted Discipline

Word has reached us of a job posting at the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. The post is in the Psychology Department.
   Traditionally, psychology examines thoughts and behavior reported among, or exhibited by, all humans, then posits theories as to how they emerge. There are various theoretical schools-of-thought on the matter of human psychology: Freudianism, behaviorism, etc. It's customary for a psychology department to teach all approaches as having potential merit, while suggesting to students that they can focus on applying one philosophy after graduation. Also, it's customary for the department to subject ALL approaches to logical critique and scrutiny.
   The posting we have is for a professor of "feminist psychology." In other words, for a teacher of theories of the mind whose background is in feminist theory. In an of itself, that's no issue. But it does raise a serious educational question: How rigorous, how neutral, and how pluralistic is the U of PEI's psychology department in the matter of curriculum?
    It is unclear from the posting (see below) whether the new hire is to examine the psychology OF feminism, or to ESPOUSE it as THE PSYCHOLOGY of choice... and teach that to students. For example, the hired professor will be paid to teach the theories of Gender construction as a basis of psychological construction; however, Gender Theory is simply a re-interpretaton of things: of actions, culture, history, etc. Therefore, Gender Theory is itself a human thought construction, not a critique of the way we humans construct thoughts.
    Feminism does, of course, theorize about the way people think. However, a feminist will suggest that, if a woman is unhappy, it's probably because she's oppressed by a man (or a male culture). So now we have to ask the question: Is this the psychological counselling that UPEI's graduates are typically going to give their clients?
     Feminism is not a branch of mainstream psychology, in this sense: it does not stand back from its own political biases and critically examine them; it does not base its conclusions on its own field research, through rigorous clinical trials; it would not seek to accredit hypotheses that contradict its own, received opinions. On the contrary, as a body originating in ONE identity group, but not humanity, it would want to validate findings that comfort that identity group and are welcomed into that group.
     Also, it would want to see findings that denigrate scholars that it felt were adversarial. So it would favor political advocacy, not scientific research.
     In the recently politicized academy, this is not unusual. For example, there is a university subdiscipline called Feminist Stewardship of the Planet. Some call this a pseudo-branch of Environmental Science. Certainly, its mission is to examine the way pollution has happened; however -- ominously -- its mission is also to validate the theory that women NURTURE the Earth, while men tend to despoil it.
     If you, dear reader, are a feminist who wants a job as a feminist psych prof, here's a posting for you:

OPENING FOR A TEN-MONTH TERM POSITION IN

CRITICAL/FEMINIST PSYCHOLOGY AT UPEI

 

The University of Prince Edward Island is inviting applications for a ten-month term position in Critical/Feminist Psychology at the Assistant Professor level beginning August 1, 2011. Qualifications include a Ph.D. in psychology (or a Ph.D. in final stages of completion), demonstrated teaching ability, and a student centered approach to teaching. Evidence of research potential and evidence of research success, while not requirements for this position, would be strong assets. The teaching assignment is three courses in each of two semesters, and would involve courses such as:  Psychology of Women; Gender and Sexuality; Media, Sex, and Power (or other courses that can be cross-listed with Women’s Studies, as this position involves 2-3 courses per year that are cross-listed); Adolescent Development; and, Introductory Psychology. 

     The Psychology Faculty are a team of dynamic, creative, and diverse educators and researchers. At UPEI, faculty have the freedom to develop their unique professional and personal potentials in a variety of ways...

Blood Relations, Part I

One of the problems we encounter in debates is vocabulary. There are many words, especially those used in Humanities studies, that had common meanings and usages, but that were made to evolve. Often, they were recruited by academic theorists to cover other, more complex phenomena. This is especially true in the highly partisan and political realm of social theory and sociology.

   For example, the word “gender” never related to human females until modern feminism wanted it to. Gender is an abstract concept of linguistics that explains why certain words use different “forms” to express similar functions. The French, for example, don’t have “a table” they have ‘a [female form] table.” The French are obsessed with the gender of their nouns; they upbraid any member of their community who cannot navigate noun genders; children who stick the masculine article, un, before a feminine noun are reprimanded.

    So navigating the gender of French nouns is rich in meaning and socially validated for the French, even though it’s meaningless to the point of vexation for English-speakers.

      It would be difficult and highly suspect to posit that this sort of gender has anything to do with politics; however, much of modern politics is obsessed precisely with notions of “gender.” That’s because, as everyone knows, the word “gender” has been assigned new meanings by feminist writers and academics.

     The word gender defines today’s feminism and marks its evolution. Many years ago, feminism made no reference to “gender,” and was all about “equality between men and women.” Not any more. Today, feminists acknowledge that they themselves argue two kinds of feminism: “equity feminism,” which is about civic equality, and “gender feminism,” which is a separate movement.

    Some believe that “gender feminism” is about how women are different from men, full-stop. Not quite. Gender feminism goes far beyond that observation, which, in any event, is, and always has been patently obvious. So no, this gender focus is not about difference; it is about the polar opposite to “equality”: superiority.

     Far from suggesting that women struggle for some sort of equal sharing of the world, gender feminists militate in favor of supremacy. Their theories argue the inherent, historical superiority of women over men. One of the ways they do so is by re-interpreting what they see as the history of the way women have lived among men.

To provide a flavor of this, I have copied short passages from the Internet-based description of a book by Chris Knight. The book is considered a foundational text of gender feminism.

   The book’s title is Blood Relations: Menstruation and the Origins of Culture (1991).

    It’s all in the words – difficult though they may be to decipher. Here’s an excerpt from the product description (amazon.com) that may illustrate:

The emergence of human culture is generally traced to the development of a social order in which males hunted large game animals and females had access to the meat. This book presents a new theory of how this culture originated. Integrating perspectives of evolutionary biology and social anthropology within a Marxist framework, Christopher Knight rejects the common assumption that human culture was a gradual extension of primate behaviour and argues instead that it was the product of an immense social, sexual, and political revolution spearheaded by women. Culture became established, says Knight, when women realized that men armed with hunting weapons could not be trusted to share the spoils of the hunt with women and offspring. They began to assert conscious control over their own sexuality, refusing sex to all males except those who came to them with provisions. Women usually timed their ban on sexual relations with their periods of infertility while they were menstruating, and to the extent that their solidarity drew women together, these periods tended to occur in synchrony. Thus every month with the onset of menstruation, sexual relations were ruptured as the prelude to each successful hunting expedition; it was the means through which women motivated men not only to hunt but also to concentrate their energies on bringing back the meat. Knight shows how his hypothesis sheds light on the roots of such cultural traditions as totemic rituals, incest and menstrual taboos, blood-sacrifices, and hunters' atonement rites. Providing detailed ethnographic documentation of his theories, he also explains how myths and fairy tales . . . seem to be the derivations of the same cultural symbolic rituals.

Here is how one enthusiastic academic reviews the book:

[P]erhaps most important of all, [a thesis] has to excite me. There may be things my mind will not be specifically educated enough, multi-lingual enough or quick enough to pick up, but you cannot fool my heart. All these three are BLOOD RELATIONS' great achievement and great contribution.

    Chris Knight . . . does this all . . . with such remarkable clarity and erudition, [that] in fact, attempts to disagree with his findings becomes [sic] pointless. His unified field-theory of the prehistoric African woman's role in the formation of human culture is so incredibly well done, and so profoundly earth shattering in its implications, that I read the book twice to fully soak in all the sacred pre-verbal intuitions I have had that it reveals to be historical fact and obvious science.

   . . . Chris Knight . . . shows unquestionably that women, via sex and the rhythm of menstruation, nurtured the primal creative impulse of civilization and they essentially created human culture. And he shows it to be made up of communal solidarity against oppressors and oppressive situations (be it prehistoric animals or alpha males), symbol-driven creativity, and achieving a certain oneness with the rhythms of nature. This primal social movement that is the womb of human culture, told in every ancient culture's foundational myths, could naturally just as easily explain the birth of democracy and/or capitalism in the historical ages of feudalism as it does the advent of Marxism in the age of capitalism...and what is next for human kind.

Put your head between your legs, and...

Pray, everyone, for our collective salvation.
The science journal Nature reports that "The Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway."
It does say "May," not "Is," so we can all hope for the best.
Quote: "The sixth mass extinction could arrive within as little as three to 22 centuries."
To translate for the innumerate, that's between 300 and 2200 years.
The article says that "until mankind's big expansion some 500 years ago, mammal extinctions were very rare: on average, just two species died out every million years." The article does not say how many mammal extinctions science has yet to discover, the assumption being that we know for certain each and every extinction. The article continues: "In the last five centuries, at least 80 out of 5,570 mammal species have [gone extinct]."
My own conclusion is that humans have crowded out of existence 80 out of 5,570 mammal species. What the article does not mention is that humans are capable of restoring endangered species and whether or not the planet required those 80 to survive in order for the planet itself to survive.
It does, however, give us pause.
I have a defined-benefit pension; I'm OK for the next 2200 years.

Pearls and Perils of Morning Radio

Half-asleep, I was expecting to hear Matt again this a.m., the do-gooder of Metro Morning. But no, I’d turned the radio on late and was startled to hear Karen Horsman acting as guest host.

             As mentioned in a previous post, I only use the CBC to catch news, but with Radio One, they’d be random bits – the weather or taxes – that bookended the social activism. 

             Surprised to hear Ms Horsman, I thought, be grateful for small mercies; at least she has a neutral radio voice –not quite the re-genderized undergrad from Advocacy Studies that Matt projects.

             But oh, I had spoken, or rather wished, too soon. Matt's spirit was still around, so here was the Advocacy that Karen had lined up:

• An increase in traffic at the Women’s Shelter
• A story about “The Non-profit Sector” and the Ontario Minister that supports it               

First up was a woman from the Toronto Women’s Shelter. Her topic was “feeding women at the shelter.” She claimed that traffic had doubled recently; she was feeding twice as many mouths as usual. Not only that, her traditional clientele had expanded into new demographics.

             How so? Well, the Aboriginal core was being reinforced by non-Aboriginals. This must be significant, and proved what a hell of an economy we had.  She claimed she fed “125 women a day.”

             While I paused in silent tribute to this social carnage, I did some heavy thinking. Was this truly about the economy? The speaker claimed it was; because it was "the economy," she was empowered to claim more funding from the government.

             And yet, thought I, perhaps this index of the economy – 125 women getting breakfast in Toronto shelters – might not be significant. These women could be poverty cases, but not ones related to the ongoing economy.

             The Aboriginals, for example, how did they normally get by? Mightn’t we assume they were all on Welfare in the first place, and never off it? If so, that was their share of the economy. Also, didn’t they supplement their incomes in non-traditional (i.e. non-taxable) ways, ways that circumvent the Welfare rules on declaring income?

             Based on personal observation (I live in a VERY poor neighborhood), this means prostitution. If the Native women were going hungry, I thought, why then, prostitution was drying up.

             This could be an index of a poor economy, I suppose, or it could be the opposite. Either randy males had less discretionary income at hand, less lubrication for booze and hookers; or, the men were occupied elsewhere, as for example, going to a new job. Or, possibly, the pimps had gone off, but hadn’t they too migrated to other jobs?

             Also, where were these women from? Were they themselves migrants? If so, then poverty was located elsewhere, not in Toronto, where the sample was supposed to have been taken. And then, so far from indicating Toronto poverty, it would point to prosperity, the attractor of new migrants. Well, the speaker did not speak of such things, she just trashed the economy and had clients to feed.

            As Karen listened, she lobbed soft questions at her guest, ones that prompt politically desirable answers: “What do you feel you need from government?” was typical, and responses were predictable. It was a very cozy chat indeed. But there was one set of questions that was never asked: anything to do with the fate of men, not women.

             As in, “How many men are hungry?” “Who is sheltering them?” “What rate of violence do they suffer?” “How many grieve the loss of children in a divorce settlement?” “How many have been ruined by a divorce lawyer?” “Who provides them counselling, medications, and especially, public-relations support?”

             That would be left to a different radio station, I suppose.

             What was Karen’s next topic? More Welfare Policy. Next on the agenda was a session featuring the Ontario Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Eric Hoskins, and Helen Burstyn, Chair of the Ontario Trillium Foundation. The latter is the umbrella agency for funding public-policy outreach; in other words, it's the grand dispensary of the Grand Welfare Republic of Ontario.

             The patter, whose theme was the "not-for-profit sector,” was remarkably amiable. The minister congratulated his ministry, and praised Trillium for all their good work. The Trillium official thanked and praised the minister and requested a lot more money. The minister – presumably facing re-election – thought this not unreasonable: we had the sense that money was there.

             Despite this, the Trillium chair focused on “economics.” Not that the economy was bad, mind you (shelter lady, are you listening?) but that “non-profit” was an “industry,” as she put it, a generator of employment, and it was fiscally important to keep it going. All sorts of people were working at social-welfare agencies, she stressed, and so pumping tax-money into their payroll was a good thing for Ontario.

             To be inclusive, she touched upon “cultural industries,” dance troupes, that sort of thing, which she lumped with all that Diversity, Divorce Lawyers, and Soup Kitchens. On the matter of high-culture, Ms Burstyn was on reasoned turf: there is evidence that high culture requires State help and that a society benefits from such intervention. However, the lady’s heart was clearly not in the theatre district, it was down at Queen and Sherbourne.  No further mention was made of culture.

             Ah, but, this was not about “doing the right thing,” it was about proving how valuable Trillium’s work was for the economy. Notwithstanding that her groups help defaulting tenants destroy your mother's duplex, or alcoholic wives battle husbands for the kids, this was not about social issues, it was about providing employment in the bureaucracy. Remarkably, the minister did not disagree.

             There were allusions to all sorts of groups and causes. However, in that long list, some notable omissions were made, both by the Trillium chair and by the minister:

•  Males. Not a single example of helping (or employing) men was offered. Not one.
•  Self-generated funds. Trillium’s agencies are supposed to be out there, raising money from the public. Trillium’s groups call themselves “charitable,” and provide a Revenue receipt for donations. And yet, not a word was heard about charity or about raising donations. All we heard was the cozy relationship between Ministry budgets and the Trillium, its big beneficiary.

Also absent, in this broadcast, was discussion of Trillium’s links to the “Green economy,” one of Trillium’s pet concerns, and one shared by this minister’s government. Just the night before, news had leaked of Trillium’s connection to wind-energy developers.

             How did this happen? Through government funding, of course: funding of a pro-wind umbrella called “comeclean.ca,” to the tune of $3,297,900. Money had been forwarded to enterprises promoting “green” energy – and the forwarding agency had been the Trillium Foundation.

             There is a biggish issue with that: Trillium is supposed to be about charity, the “non-profit” sector; Trillium is supposed to be about “volunteers,” not commercial interests. Yet it is now sheltering lobbies that push business start-ups, the so-called wind industry.

 Neither the minister, nor the Trillium person, nor Karen raised that contradiction. I need to keep spinning the radio dial.

When the Little Green Creatures Come

This time they came at the doorbell and it was gentle. In the past, they had skipped the bell in favor of the door, beaten on twice, a bit like a SWAT team. They were busy hanging from the outside storm, loose on its rusted hinge, so I decided to open.

             They were a couple, man and woman, she bundled against the winter, he in a sort of miner’s cap, but with muffs. We were cracked open, lest Kate the cat escape.

             “We’re from OntarioGreenhome!” the man sang; I stared. The woman gulped. Yes? I replied.

             “Can we see your water heater?” he pursued.  No, I said; Why?

             “To inspect it,” he growled, pressing his nose dangerously into proximity. I said, Why?

              “GreenEnergyStar!” they howled. I think I must have winced and turned, since the man shifted and pushed a sheaf of papers at me. “It’s brand-new, doesn’t need inspection,” I muttered, pulling the door, but for the man, this was a cue: he moved a corner of his papers into the door-jamb: “OntarioGreenhome!” he hissed. “You don’t have the Star!” There was a tiny decal with a tinier logo on his package; it was green but beyond that, indecipherable. “What are you selling?” I asked. The couple stared.  “New, not buying in the near future,” I repeated, “also, rented, belongs to the Utilities.”

             "No," shouted the man, "just because it’s new doesn’t mean it has the Star!"

             I was now on the door like a diabetic needing his cookie. Whoa! shouted the man. Wham went the door.

Prior to that, it was the couple I came to call The GreenPlanners. Both men, one was middle-aged, the other, a callow youth.  Together they went like Mormons, pacing the icy walks, thumping doorposts, waving their arms. They too were laden with books, chief among them a sort of register resembling the Domesday.

             They never rang any bell, but bounded onto the porch and walloped whatever surface would boom. As I finally went tottering out, they were restless.

             “Are you on the GreenPlan??” they crooned. I looked. Quickly, I moved back, making haste to close the door. No, said I, I’m fine.

             “Oh, said the fatter of the two,”you need to sign up!” He was waving a pack of papers. “I already have energy,” I replied, “I don’t need any more.”

             But are you on the Plan, they chorused, like a TV jingle, one  of them in falsetto.

             “But what are you selling?” said I; “Oh,” said the fatter, “no big clauses or locked-in contracts.” "You’re an energy company, right?" “The Plan,” they howled, “Are you saying you are not on the GreenPlan!!”

Weeks later, about an hour before the OntarioGreenhome invasion, our GreenPlanners had hobbled back and done a second attempt, and it was even tipsier than the first. Possibly, this poisoned Greenhome’s chances. And now  in my mind’s eye, I see four unhappy figures, cold, unprepared, resentful, wondering why the world hates them so much on such a modest street as mine.

US tax hints for 2011

A note to the wise. Even if they're personal, you may deduct the cost of additions, extensions, and other improvements. See the video

FILM RVIEW: Another Year

Tom and Gerri (Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen) are an amiable British couple approaching their golden years in a cosy corner of London. Tom's an archaeological engineer and Gerri works at a local clinic as a psychologist. They've enjoyed a decades-long, loving marriage. They're a couple that's bright, articulate, and self-aware. But nobody in their circle comes up to that standard; in fact, they're surrounded by misery and human train-wrecks.
   Chief wreck in this collection is a woman named Mary, a friend of Gerri's. This individual (played crazily by Leslie Manville) appears about 48 but her body is still young. She puts a lot of stock in that. Recently divorced, she hangs around the pubs in an effort to attract new men. She also haunts her friend Gerri's house and increasingly imposes her depressive episodes on the couple.
   Mike Leigh's new work is titled "Another Year," a title that evokes Eric Rohmer and Ingmar Bergman. The style is pure Leigh grit, a quality of unalloyed raw-material that the director is famous for. This time, he really outdoes himself: the film is so unerringly natural, so aware of pain, that it almost brings the illusion of film to a stand-still.
   A succession of characters parade through Gerri and Tom's life, people like Tom's friend Ken (a hilarious Peter Wight) and Tom's brother Ronnie, the latter done superbly by the sepulchral David Bradley. These connections of Tom's are as desperate as Gerri's friend, the unhappy Mary. In all these working-class portraits Leigh has pulled off a supreme act of critical examination.
   You may want to look for the many hommages in the film. The character Mary probably owes her genesis to Blanche Dubois, the doomed socialite-tease of the Tennessee Williams masterpiece. In Another Year, Mary, like Blanche, envies the living and the young; she teases all men except those she's most suited to. Sadly for her, she won't get the attention that Blanche received. Mary is a particularly rich portrait, almost unendurable, as she lurches from one narcissistic scene to another.
    Other tributes are stylistic. There are patches of dialogue here that evoke Harold Pinter's family-based plays, and even Samuel Beckett's Godot, and snatches of theatricality that seem cribbed from the Beckett-Pinter inheritance. Mostly, though, we have a night of documentary realism that smacks of British kitchen-sink drama.
     Another Year is a craft film that almost screams Auteur, as it experiments with filmic conventions. You'll laugh nervously  -- the humor is steady-- but find little breeze in its cloistered scenes. You'll be stunned by moments, especially those with Mary, where Leigh forces things to a halt, obliging us to stop gazing and grazing, and to start peering in horror at our act of peering at characters. This is experimental shooting in the grand tradition of pioneers such as J-L Godard.
     And boy does it work! In the end, the film is heart-stopping. It may operate on you like a day at a sick auntie's, first, trapped in the invalid's room, then, the bus. Viewed in the space of two hours, it will not soon be forgotten.

Rated by Recti: 4 stars