[25] in peace2
Re: WTO movement and peace
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aimee L Smith)
Mon Jan 17 14:44:18 2000
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:46:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Aimee L Smith <alsmith@photonics.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <200001171946.OAA0000012051@photonics.mit.edu>
To: karens@MIT.EDU, artmacom@micron.net
Cc: jlewey@brandeis.edu, peace2@MIT.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Md5: vz6hPGwJccdKHriYdFFrSQ==
Hi Everyone,
First, let me say I am excited to see interest
and discussion about these issues that are so important to me.
It makes me feel much less alone here in the belly of this
beast called MIT!
We are getting ready for the next seminar dealing
with women at MIT coming this thurs. (Please come and bring
your friends!) I have been thinking a lot about the culture
of MIT, the culture of science, and the cultures of male-
dominated communities to get ready. The tone of Art's recent
email brought up a lot of these issues for me and in the
nterest of generating a more open discussion and a more productive
environment for learning, I will share some of them with you.
From Qualifying to Equivocal Speaking:
Karen began her email with a disclaimer that she is not an expert
of economics. In an environment where honesty, humility and mutual
self respect are valued, this type of introduction strengthens her
position. In an environment where bravado and *the illusion* of
certainty (a.k.a. hype) are valued, this type of opening leaves
her open to "attack." Attack here means competitive back and forth
of people trying to "prove" their points and counter the points of
the "opponent." This strategy is clearly not the only way to exchange
and share information, but it leads to our next topic in a second.
As for qualifying speech, this goes more with female socialization.
It doesn't mean all women do this, no men do it, but it does mean that
the way in which women are socialized (to whatever varying degree of
success for any particular woman) is toward a way of speaking that
values the listener(s) as an equal who may have as much if not more
to add to the discussion. The male-socialization path (again, not
claiming how successfully it is internalized by any particular individual)
is toward a sense of isolation from others and requiring various tools
for protection from others (such as physical strength or an unshakable
sense of certainty.) This type of socialization would lead to a more
argumentative speaking style since the male-socialized being must
demonstrate his worth and security by being "right", "better", "stronger",
and thereby "impenetrable" (emotionally, physically, mentally, sexually):
the epitome of male-hood. The female-socialized moves toward connection
with others and thereby not sacrificing relationships to "win" a point.
"She" is "receptive" and "penetrable." Neither is without its failings and
strengths. No person is purely either, but aspects of each. But it
should be clear which style a male-dominated environment would tend
to gravitate toward. (For the classic text on this gender difference
issue, you might check out Carol Gilligan's _In a Different Voice_.)
Objectivity vs. Subjectivity
Arguments such as the first paragraphs of Art's letter:
>Karen, it is clear that you have no knowledge of economics, but instead of
>holding that against you, I would like to give you some simple reading.
>One book you would enjoy is the "Road to Serfdom", by F.A. Hayek and another,
>I can't remember the author now, is called "The Incredible Bread Machine."
>Both of these books echo the basics of economics, not from the government's view or
>some rich, white boy - as you so fondly call us - no matter how "Black or Hispanic
>or Asian" my true experience may be, but they outline the actual goings-on of folks
>who are trying to better their own lives. So, they are ground-level texts, easy to
>read and fun too, regardless of someone's alleged race (as seen from the
>outside...).
seem to this observer(i.e. me) to be quite patronizing. "Patronizing" has the same
root as the ever overarching (OK, at least several thousands of years worth)
system that has subjugated a large portion of womankind. That system is
called patriarchy. Both words stem from the idea that old men know best,
or more literally:
father knows, does, is and deserves to be treated best.
Being a budding young feminist, naturally I take issue with this idea.
Especially when it comes to things like harassment and gender based
discrimination. My father doesn't really know jack-squat about these things
and he is not very helpful on these points. He also doesn't know too much
about how my body works, but you might have guessed as much. And he
isn't very good at bearing or raising children, so clearly
he isn't "best", at least not in all things! The point of this "Matronizing"
section is to point out that there are many many different ways of seeing
the world. There is no concrete objective truth like western science has
been trying to maintain for eons. Fortunately even western science is
being revitalized by fields such as quantum mechanics. And social science
(of which economics is clearly a part) has been embracing the "truth" of
"many truths" or many angles on truth for quite some time. (Thank goddess,
or us women would feel even more out of place than we already do! That is
b/c MALE reallity has often been confused with THE ONLY reallity. That state
of affairs can really make a person feel like an alien, especially when
lived experience comes crashing up against "supposed truth."...)
So, I hope we can dispense with the notion of "one truth" and try to keep
sharing the hints and glances at "Truth" that our particular vantage points
offer from time to time.
OK, I feel *much* better now! Art, sorry to use you as an example. We
set this list up to be an aid toward learning about a wide variety of
issues. I want to make sure that everyone can feel comfortable _sharing_,
which means we should all try to be tolerant. I guarantee that we all
have way more ignorance than knowledge, but if we pool our knowledge,
we can get a lot farther than working in isolation.
As for economics, I have yet to find a convincing "expert" but I think
Vandana Shiva has a good approach of looking at events in their cultural, political
and historical context, for example, _The Violence of the Green Revolution_.
Chomsky also looks at things in their historical context... pretty much
anything he writes (outside of linguistics) is related to economics.
So-called "3rd world" economies seem to be disadvantaged by IMF and
World Bank debt due to structural adjustment and austerity measures that to
this white-woman-of-the-"1st-world" seem to ensure external political and
economic control to the "1st world" via IMF and World Bank. Why does Congo
have to pay back cash that was pocketed by the brutal (right-wing) dictator
Mobutu who replaced the democratically elected leader (Mamoemba, sp?) who was
mysteriously found dead in a CIA persons car trunk? Do we really believe that
the only thing standing between a developing country and progress is a Nike factory
opening up its doors? It seems to me that the question of why the economically
disadvantaged state of affairs exists is a very relevant question to get
to the bottom of before we decide what is good for other countries. Also,
no controlled studies of socialized or communist type national economies have
ever been done since the US has militarily and economically tried to break every
such economy, including Cuba (still!!), Soviet Union as early as 1917
when the West invaded to try to oust the Bolsheviks, South East Asia,
Central America.... and on and on. However, one place to look at the concept
of land-reform or property redistribution that hasn't been so underfire is
the state-wide governments of West Bengal, India and Kerela, India. I
know more about Kerela. It is the 4th poorest state but has one of the
most uniformly good standard of living among its people. So, if the
goal is to survive comfortably without needing to have 10 children to
ensure your ability to retire, land-refrom has enabled success in Kerela. If the
point is to have the "opportunity" to some day own a BMW and live in
a mansion and winter in Bermuda, then you might not call it success. And if
democracy means having such opportunity, then you might claim the US
is one. If democracy means the people choose their representatives and
that you are free to speak and to peaceably assemble without risk of bodily
injury or imprisonment, then we wouldn't really make the cut... but we can
all keep working for that.
Of course, stating the pro-corporate rhetoric without feeling the need to
substantiate any of its claims makes for much shorter emails, but I doubt it will
get us any closer to the "Truth"...
So, this is all just one white-straight-US citizen-feminist-catholic-frisbee-
playing-scientist-woman's p.o.v. I look forward to reading yours!
Regards,
Aimee
