Blog Entry 4- McWhorter Response

“Yet despite its having no biological, genetic, or even clear morphological or social reference, race is a significant part of contemporary Western reality. It functions in social institutions- both officially, as a means for distributing goods and determining representation, as in affirmative action law, and the US census, and unofficially as a means of identification, discrimination, and affiliation. It does not so much mean  (that is direct or attention to a given object) as  operate ( that is, create divisions that enable systems of control to maintain themselves).”  (McWhorter, 2004 p. 52-53)

I always choose to write my blog entries after a reading has been discussed in class, not in hopes of plagiarizing what was spoken about, but because the class lectures always cause me to draw the reading into a different light than I would have done on my own. McWhorter’s piece is no different. I found it interesting, but also a bit dense in its construction. I struggled with understanding exactly how she felt the construction of sex  related to the construction of race, and how that was influential on our culture today. After class I feel that I have a much greater appreciation for her article. I was intrigued by the way in which McWhorter presents race as essentially an entity unto itself that serves to maintain control of the population and to uphold the current social order. It is not natural, instead it is a manifestation of our desire to control and subjugate one another, to empower some people and to demoralize others . It allows us to categorize and sort individuals in ways that make each person easy to identify; both on an institutional and governmental level, and also in our day to day lives.

I had previously thought of race as a characteristic of people, something that is a part of a person. After reading McWhorter’s article, I now think that instead, it is the people who are made to be a part of a race. This seems like a small difference in phrasing, but I think that it is a critical one. It is not individuals that inherently have a race, but it is that they are cast into a race due to external characteristics far beyond their control. It is just that the casting is so latent, that most of us neglect to notice it taking place; particularly when our race provides us with an advantage over other individuals.This leads us to believe that race has always, and will always be a part of life. In this way we all are acted upon by the power of the institution of race, and allow it to continue to divide, subjugate and categorize us. This new view on raise now causes me to wonder what could happen if we could get a large portion of society to buy into the idea that race is not an inevitable construction, but rather one that has been created for a very specific person. In part, I think that some of the population would demand that we uproot race as an institution. On the other hand, I think that while perhaps we could eliminate "race" as it is today, that another form of categorization would arise to take its place.

McWhorter, Ladelle . "Sex, Race, and Biopower: A Foucauldian Genealogy." Hypatia 19.3 (2004): 38-62. Print.

Blog Entry 3- Dreger Response

“Among those advocating prenatal dexamethasone, New seems to have been particularly concerned that CAH-affected girls may fail to grow up to be heterosexual wives and mothers. Speaking to a group of parents of children with CAH in 2001 at a meeting organized by the CARES Foundation, New showed a photo of a girl with ambiguous genitalia and said:

‘The challenge here…to see what could be done to restore this baby to normal female appearance which would be compatible with her parents presenting her as a girl, with her eventually becoming somebody’s wife, and having normal sexual development, and becoming a mother. And she has all the machinery for motherhood, and therefore nothing should stop that, if we can repair her surgically and help her psychologically to continue to grow and develop as a girl (New 2001a)’” (Dreger et al, p. 61)

            Maria New is a well-known, well respected physician, who even the article’s authors recognize as having done a great deal of good for the medical community at large. Given her status as a physician she is also clearly well educated. Given all of this, it is almost shocking to see the way in which New is so concerned with the notion that all girls must grow up to be heterosexual wives and mothers. It seems there can be no higher accomplishment for an individual with XX chromosomes than to successfully utilize the machinery provided by nature to produce more offspring. Juxtaposed with all of the modern medical technology presented in the article it seems to be an archaic notion from another time that has somehow persisted until now. I found New’s phrasing in her speech at the CAH meeting to be particularly striking, especially as she is addressing parents of children with CAH. She treats the children born with CAH as if they are broken individuals. They must be restored, helped, and repaired so that they can function. Such phrasing almost incites parents to take action, to begin a dexamethasone treatment the next time they are pregnant, or to warn their friends about the dangers of CAH. New robs the parents of the opportunity to see their children as individuals who have developed differently from other individuals, rather than damaged goods.

            The phrasing New uses also likely allows her in a way to dehumanize the infants she is working with. It may be more difficult to tinker with bodies of infants who house minds, and eventually will house dreams and hopes; but it is far easier to tinker with a body who must be fixed in order to properly utilize its machinery. The body becomes one that instead of housing hopes and dreams, houses eggs, fallopian tubes, and a uterus. I would also feel remiss not to mention that perhaps this child’s dreams would not include a life path compatible with New’s ideals. Perhaps some parents also do not feel that their child would have to conform to such a path. This infant may have grown up never wanting to be somebody’s wife or somebody’s mother. Yet their choice to lead such a life becomes much more difficult when New and other doctors like her make a decision to alter the anatomy or physiology of the child. This very specific type of phrasing may also make it easier to brush off many of the consequences that can come with the administration of dexamethasone; they become unfortunate side effects of the work required to fix a larger problem.

 

Dreger, Alice, Ellen Feder, and Anne Tamar-Mattis. "Prenatal Dexamethasone for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9.3 (2012): 277-294. Print.

Blog Entry 2- DePaulo Response

“There’s something wrong with the set of ‘truths’ we hold to be self evident. The mythology of marriage and singlehood does not square with the actual lives of people who are married and people who are single.” (DePaulo, 2006 p. 61)

               I was grabbed by the way that DePaulo referred to the current cultural view on marriage as the “mythology” of marriage. I tend to associate myths with fantastical images of Medusa with snakes for hair, or of Jack climbing the Giant Beanstalk. Myth is not what I associate with something I encounter in my daily life. The very specific phrasing caused me to reevaluate my preconceived notions about marriage and singlehood, and compare these ideas to the information presented by DePaulo. If that was DePaulo’s intent, which I suspect that it was, it was a very smart word choice.

            I can admit that I am guilty of believing that the large majority of married people are happier than their single counterparts. Much like the college students surveyed, I tend to perceive married individuals as happier. They have found their one true love, they always have a partner to support them, and they are never alone. I watch Say Yes to the Dress with my mom and have on one occasion or another wasted a few hours daydreaming about married life. However, given the number of divorced people that I know, I wonder why I have always thought that married people are the happier ones. My parents are married, but both sets of grandparents are divorced, my aunts and uncles are all divorced, even my boyfriend’s parents are divorced. At every point in my life, I have had a friend, or two, or three who had parents going through divorce. The large majority of people I know ultimately decided that marriage did not, in fact, make them happier. Instead, they decided that divorce and singlehood, or at least some state of being unwed was a better option. I even know many people who have lived their entire adult lives as single, and these are often the people I envy most! These are usually the individuals who have the opportunity to travel across the globe, or to pick up and move somewhere when a great job offer comes along.

            Despite the evidence to the contrary, perhaps I accept the standard cultural view on marriage because as DePaulo says, it is presented to me as a self-evident truth. The superiority of marriage is presented as something that does not require evidence, rather it just is. While women, in particular, can achieve a great deal in life, they are always looked down upon if they are unmarried. As if to say that accomplishments in life are valuable, but not as valuable as being in a traditional marriage. For it is important to note that not only is the superiority of marriage the valued cultural standard, but it is really the superiority of heterosexual marriage that is championed above all else. I am interested to read DePaulo’s book on my own, and watch as she unravels each myth that surrounds the happiness of married and single individuals. I may ultimately find that I still want to get married- which I think that I do- but I will be relieved of the societal pressure to do so.

 

DePaulo, Bella. "Science and the Single Person." Singled Out: How Singles are Stereotyped, Stigmatized and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2006. 28-61. Print.

Blog Entry 1- Nussbaum Response

“Radical changes are occurring in what democratic societies teach the young, and these changes have not been well thought through. Thirsty for national profit, nations, and their systems of education, are heedlessly discarding skills that are needed to keep democracies alive. If this trend continues, nations all over the world will soon be producing generations of useful machines, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves, criti­cize tradition, and understand the significance of another person’s sufferings and achievements. The future of the world’s democra­cies hangs in the balance.” (Nussbaum, 2010 p. 2)

                     My educational career has long been dominated by a conversation centered on the loss of the arts in the classroom. Parents would discuss it at PTA meetings or while all the kids were on the swings. Teachers would talk about how they couldn't do a certain club, or teach a certain thing the way they used to. Starting in third or fourth grade, I began to notice commercials on television talking about how important music and art were in the classroom. The Save the Arts Foundation had a number of celebrities to speak on their behalf in between the cartoons on Nickelodeon. I was not fond of playing my recorder, and I was not good at painting in art class; I didn’t understand the importance of any of the classes that I thought were my ‘art’ classes. However, I did love to read, to explore the vast unknown of the world through the pages of a book. In fact, I still do. One of the best college application essays I ever wrote began, “Our relationship may have begun tumultuously, but reading was undoubtedly my first true love.” My parents encouraged me to read, and read to me any time that they could. My love of reading was fostered through the Drop Everything And Read (DEAR) program, and was multiplied by my Gifted and Talented (REACH) program. Twice a week, from second grade on, I was pulled from my regular classes and put into the wonderful classroom of Mr. Bowman.  I don’t know how he ended up in an elementary school, he is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, but I’m grateful he did.

Our very first class, he introduced us to what he called the process of critical thinking. It is a process that has stuck with me to this very day. He encouraged us to ponder things, to explore the implications that our decisions could have on the future. I created an ancient alien society complete with artifacts like the handmade paper my mom and I created. I analyzed the relevance of laws, such as the one that begins, “Pickles must bounce!” I read a version of Cinderella from every culture. The Yiddish one is still my favorite. While my other classes taught me to read, to write, to memorize and regurgitate information, in REACH I learned how to apply those skills for more than spitting back the right answer on a test. The skills I gained through a education with a broader scope, have empowered me in the classroom, to ask questions, to get answers wrong, and to think a bit outside of the box. I would like to consider myself on the path to becoming a well-rounded citizen, and not just a cog that will serve the industrial machine of our country well. I was one of only a few students exposed to this class; it is one of the many specialty humanities centered classes that is being eliminated as budget cuts seek to streamline education. While it remains at my elementary school for now, I fear that it may go the way of so many other classes that have disappeared from the curriculum.

Given my experience, the changes that Nussbaum presents are frightening to me, and I feel lucky to have perhaps narrowly escaped them. Even if I only escaped them by the virtue of the school my parents put me in. However, while I am grateful for my education, I am also worried about the future. I was lucky to gain access to all of the resources I had during my elementary school years, and continue to be lucky as I am able to pursue more liberal arts subjects in conjunction with my pre-med courses. Yet I still feel wholly unprepared to tackle the complex issues that are facing my generation. I fear that students who are not allowed to explore complex issues within the safety of a classroom will not only lack the ability to do so in the real world, but will also fear taking on the responsibility difficult problems can present. This is what leaves the very essence of democracy hanging in the balance. Empowered citizens seek to hold the reigns of their future and demand democracies; citizens afraid that they will be unable to handle the challenges of their time are the citizens more vulnerable to the loss of democracy. It will suddenly sound comforting to allow another individual, or another organization to handle making the difficult choices.

Nussbaum, Martha. "The Silent Crisis." Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. 1-11. Print.

I also found this quote to be fitting. It is from the film Detachment starring Adrien Grenier.