[30] in peace2
Re: WTO movement and peace
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (The Macomber Family)
Tue Jan 18 07:47:52 2000
Message-Id: <388460BE.4D5A422A@micron.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 05:46:54 -0700
From: The Macomber Family <artmacom@micron.net>
Reply-To: artmacom@micron.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Aimee L Smith <alsmith@photonics.mit.edu>
Cc: karens@MIT.EDU, jlewey@brandeis.edu, peace2@MIT.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Interesting seminar, Aimee. Which comment is not meant to patronize, so don't become
inflamed. I agree with most of what you said, but feel that your perspective that
provoked it is off base. And, from one old feminist to a budding young one, here is
why:
What I said was:
"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."
What happened was that I agreed with her concerns about her knowledge of economics,
stated right out front that I was not going to hold that against her by going on what
you would probably frame as an attack, and proceeded to offer assistance by recommending
two books, one of which I could not recall the author of, thereby publicly stating that
I was not perfect and thus, in your view, leaving myself open to attack - in apparently
a most feminine way. Interesting, yes?
And, further, I apologized for the second paragraph already - perhaps a most -ahem-,
unmale thing to do, but due nonetheless.
Interestingly, as a contrast, yesterday I walked out to our manufacturing line with a
Marketing employee who made several statements to which I replied, "Obviously, you know
nothing about high-speed manufacturing, here let me recommend a couple of items." And I
handed them the New Worker Training package for study. They were thrilled that I took
the time to give a hoot and further, that I later took them on a tour of the factory and
gave them the basic layout so they would not get lost in the reading later, but would
have touchpoints of knowledge from the "ground floor", if you will. They were not only
pleased that took a moment for their interests, but happy that I did so in such a
sensitive way. It was later at lunch that this man shared his feelings with me. So, my
belief is that when people are in a learning mode, one power of accuracy is to
acknowledge where their knowledge base is and where it is not at the outset.
Away from the parse and to the point: One of these books, The Road to Serfdom, was
written by the person who lost the great economic battle of the 1930's to John M. Keynes
over whether government intervention was necessary and possible in free societies.
Naturally, the government theorists loved his interventionary ways better - much like
the WTO would like to centrally organize trade, as trade unionists do through
protectionist and other measures, instead of allowing individuals to exercise their own
liberty, to create their own destiny and dreams. After 70 years of government
intervention, (and some fairly dramatic government blood-letting...) most sages on that
front are leaning back towards Hayek. His approach is much more realistic because it
does not analyse the aggregate and thus depend on centralized controls, but focuses on
the individual choices of individual people - a much more feminine approach, if you want
to genderize it. Hayek died a couple of years back, but he would have no truck for the
sort of generalizing that us feminists do - and others when we say, "3rd world countries
want...", or "Women are like...", or "Economists say that..." Hayek takes individuals
as the power or downfall of the world.
America in general, especially at the beginning of the last century, if I may so
generalize, used to raise people who were not only strong mentally, but believed in the
power of the individual and did something about it. Today, unfortunately, in my view,
instead of discussing the issues, we parse each other, as you did to me, objectifying me
to the group, and laying on a long-winded explanation, instead of seeing what was
actually there - the actual thing that I wrote - you felt compelled to drill down and
make me fit into some sort of cubbyhole designed for a gender-based thing (certainly not
a full flower person), thereby denying my individuality and the possibility of your
being in error - oops, you jumped right to judgment. It is certainly interesting, as I
stated in my apology over my impunged second paragraph yesterday, how the blinders can
warp perspective.
So, I agree we all have a ways to go.
-Art
------
Aimee L Smith wrote:
> 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
