Maori Issues In Research - Short Assignment
by Danny Rudd
My name is Danny Rudd, I am a Pakeha New Zealander, born in Rotorua, and I have lived most of my adult life in Christchurch and Wellington. My mother lived her entire life in the central North Island, her parents were both first generation New Zealanders born to English parents. My father was born in Hokitika on the West Coast of the South Island, and spent his early adulthood in Christchurch before moving north to settle in Rotorua. His father was a second generation New Zealander of Scottish heritage, and his mother was a first generation New Zealander born to English parents. There is not a drop of Maori blood in my body, but as a gay man with a half-Maori partner, I believe I can relate somewhat to the concerns of Maori in regards to the range of approaches that have been taken in researching Maori people and communities. The following will outline the research approaches described by Walsh-Tapiata (1997) and Ruwhiu (1999), arguing that for someone of my standing in relationship to Maori, a Maori-Centred research approach is optimal.
Ruwhiu (1999, pp. 44-50) describes seven research approaches that have been taken in studying Maori and their communities, and which together comprise a continuum from disempowering to empowering. The first of these is the Pirating approach (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.44), in which non-Maori researchers make use of Maori informants and then present the resulting knowledge as their own insights without acknowledging the contributions of those informants. This approach was commonly taken by anthropologists and other social researchers in Colonial times, it would be a mistake however to believe this approach is no longer taken.
The second research approach identified by Ruwhiu (1999, p.45) is the Restructuring approach, in which the particular, culturally and geographically bound experiences and understandings of Maori are fitted into the cultural understandings of another group, commonly of the European settlers, downplaying the differences between them and misrepresenting Maori in so doing. Ruwhiu (1999, p.45) notes that while this approach is inherently limiting to the group being studied, it has paved the way for more equitable relations.
The third research approach described by Ruwhiu (1999, pp.45-46) is the Third-Party approach, in which researcher and researched agree upon an aide or supervisor who facilitates the process of information-gathering. Ruwhiu (1999, p.46) notes that this approach is not optimal however, for while it gives credit to all contributors, it does not necessarily benefit both parties equally.
The fourth research approach mentioned is the Mentor/Tiaki approach (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.46), in which a researcher gains the benefit of cultural guidance particular to the community being studied and has access to the community as a participant observer, and is accountable to the community. This approach gives Maori a measure of control over the research outcomes.
The fifth approach is the Whanau/Whangai research approach (Ruwhiu, 1999, pp.46-47), where the researcher effectively becomes a member of the Whanau and is expected to meet the obligations of a Whanau member. This approach benefits both the researcher and the researched, allowing the former a far greater understanding of Maori life in being a full participant observer, and benefitting the latter in that the research is intended to strengthen the Whanau, addressing issues that are relevant to that Whanau. This ‘adoptive’ status is conferred on the researcher by the Whanau or Iwi, and cannot be presumed by the researcher. It is entirely possible that my ethnic background and sexuality may prevent my inclusion in this manner.
The sixth approach is the Power-Sharing/Partnership approach (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.47) which emphasises partnership, participation and protection, observing tikanga or appropriate cultural practice, ensuring that both parties derive equal benefits from the work that is done together. Walsh-Tapiata (1997, p.140) notes that this approach affirms the validity of both Maori and Pakeha methodologies, but asserts that Maori methods are most appropriate in dealing with Maori. This approach may be most appropriate for me where I am working with Maori researchers, but may not always be practical, and arguably will limit my own understanding and my usefulness to Maori communities.
The seventh and most optimal approach is the Empowering Outcome approach, which is focused on researching the questions that Maori want to know about and are concerned with creating beneficial outcomes for those researched (Walsh-Tapiata, 1997, p.139). This approach can be divided into Kaupapa Maori and Maori-Centred research models.
Kaupapa Maori research is specifically focused on culture (Walsh-Tapiata, 1997, p.136), it is that which has Maori life and experience as its subject, which is done by Maori researchers, for the benefit of Maori. Kaupapa Maori research highlights the fundamental importance of Whanaunatanga (the establishment of relationships of trust and respect), Te Reo (language and expression), Tikanga Maori (appropriate custom), Rangatiratanga (the right to self-determination) and Mana Wahine/Mana Tane (acknowledgment and respect for the differences between and contributions of both men and women) to Maori people (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.49-50; Walsh-Tapiata, 1997, p.152). I am excluded from participating in Kaupapa Maori research because I have no Maori blood, however I do not feel excluded in this respect, for while the insistence of Kaupapa Maori researchers that only Maori do research on Maori can certainly be seen as being biologically determinist (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.50), I can sympathise with the sentiments that underlie this position.
I understand that retaining some control over the research that is done on one’s own community is an assertion of the validity of that community’s unique perspective, and affords some protection against researchers unsympathetic to the issues faced by that community. Certainly there has been plenty of research done on queer communities and individuals by ‘outsiders’ which has failed to describe the realities of queer people’s lives and has in fact been used to further marginalise and even criminalise them. Like Maori, lesbian and gay people still face discrimination and issues of invisibility (Baker, 2001, pp.99-100).
I believe however that it is not necessary to experience first-hand the particular form of oppression, discrimination and exploitation faced by a minority to see how unjust it is and work to change it, and indeed there are plenty of Pakeha who sympathise with Maori (Melbourne, 1995, p.16). Maori must seek alliances with other oppressed and marginalised groups across ethnic divisions, as they have many of the same concerns. The insistence that research on Maori communities and Maori people should only be conducted by Maori researchers is inherently limiting, depriving Maori of valuable allies and access to the often greater resources of the non-Maori majority (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.114-115). Maori, particularly, are often materially disadvantaged and thus lacking in resources to challenge the prevailing system (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.208-209; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.114-115).
It can be argued that circumstances only really improve for minorities when they have allies who are not part of their group, as those ‘alien’ to the wider society often need endorsement from others in the mainstream to be accepted. The application of the Maori-Centred research approach presents an ideal opportunity to forge such alliances. Maori-Centred research shares with Kaupapa Maori research the privileging of Maori experience and world-views, the emphasis on Maori participation at all levels of research, and the expectation that Maori research be conducted in ways that are culturally appropriate to Maori (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.48). It does not, however, necessarily exclude non-Maori, and is therefore the optimum approach for researchers like myself.
Walsh-Tapiata (1997, p.134-135) notes that researchers often find themselves greeted with suspicion and even contempt by Maori, who have been marginalised, misrepresented and exploited by Eurocentric academics in the past. Given my ‘outsider’ status and the various Iwi’s potentially differing responses to the prospect of a non-Maori researcher, I would expect some resistance from Whanau and Iwi, as such it would be appropriate for me to approach the community’s leaders for guidance, and to make myself and my intentions known. I would need to demonstrate an awareness of the validity of Maori understandings and emphasise that the work is to be collaborative, and that the community will be involved in the decision making process at every step if they so choose, including in deciding the intended outcomes of the research.
Key to this process is the principal of Whanaunatanga, the establishment of relationships of respect between myself and the community or individuals I wish to work with, a transparency about who I am, what the research is intended for and how it will benefit them. If possible, the involvement of Maori researchers held in high esteem by the Iwi should be sought, and I should demonstrate some proficiency with Te Reo (Walsh-Tapiata, 1997, p.153). This last may present a particular challenge, however preparedness (perhaps through enrolment in a Maori language course at Te Wananga O Aotearoa or similar provider) may offset this difficulty, and certainly under a Mentor/Tiaki approach some assistance may be provided by the Whanau or iwi. A third and final issue that may cause difficulties, as already noted above, is my identity as a gay man, this may be too problematic in some cases, and yet I would venture that openness, persistence, and the support of a respected takatāpui advocate may overcome this barrier.
References
Baker, M. (2001). Families, labour and love: Family diversity in a changing world. Crow’s Nest NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
McLennan, G. Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students, 2nd ed. New Zealand: Pearson Education.
Melbourne, H. (1995). Maori sovereignty: The Maori perspective. New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Poata-Smith, E. Te Ahu. (1996). He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest. In P. Spoonley, C. Macpherson and D. Pearson (Eds.) Nga Patai: Racism and ethnic relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 91-115). New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Ruwhiu, L. A. (1999). Maori knowledges, philosophies and research. Te Puawaitanga o te ihi me te wehi: The politics of Maori social development policy. New Zealand: Massey University.
Walsh-Tapiata, W. (1997). Te Rangahau: Methodological concerns. Raukawa Social Services: Origins and future directions. Waiho ma te iwi e whakarite. New Zealand: Massey University.
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
More of 'What I Do'
176.206
Understanding Social Life
by Danny Rudd
"Critically discuss the relationship between the politics of research and how social scientists investigate the social world."
Course Coordinators:
Lesley Patterson, Avril Bell
The research process does not begin and end with the conducting of a study, rather, research inquiries are always situated within political contexts, and may have wide-ranging and possibly unintended consequences. In conducting research, social scientists strive to be objective and systematic, however their attempts to impose scientific rigour in the investigation of social phenomena may ultimately be unrealistic, as the politics of research that come into play may render such attempts at objectivity futile. What then are the politics surrounding research, and how do they constrain or enable research inquiries?
To understand the relationship between the politics of research and how social scientists investigate the social world, we first must define what is meant by the ‘politics of research’ and ‘how social scientists investigate the social world.’ We begin with the latter question: how do social scientists investigate the social world? Commonly employed research techniques include conducting interviews, designing and administering survey questionnaires, engaging in participant observation and making use of well-chosen informers to create ethnographies, life-histories and analyses of recorded communications and other representations by means of content analysis and semiotic analysis (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley, 2004, pp.12-13). A fundamental difference between these methods is whether the techniques employed are quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative research may be characterised as “based on precise measurement” (Bilton et al., 1996, p.109), concerned primarily with description of the parameters of a population in regards to a variable or variables. Chamberlain (2000, p.290) notes that in quantitative analysis description is seen as a perfectly valid and desirable outcome. Ajwani et al.’s (2003) Decades of Disparity: Ethnic mortality trends in New Zealand 1980 – 1999, which counts and compares mortality across ethnic and gender and age categories in New Zealand, is an example of quantitative analysis.
Qualitative research, on the other hand, can be described as “the nonnumerical examination and interpretation of observations, for the purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships” (Babbie, 2007, p.378). It is concerned more with the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ than with precise measurements. Chamberlain, (2000, p.286) notes an increasing acceptance of qualitative work in sociology, health psychology and other fields, and suggests that this is indicative of “changing notions” of what constitutes research. Qualitative methods include participant observation, content analysis, case-studies, life histories and interviews (Babbie, 2007, p.377), such as those conducted by Hargreaves for her study Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination (2006). What all these quantitative and qualitative methods have in common is that they are critical, reflexive, and disciplined (Bilton et al., 1996, p.100), they are systematic and methodical attempts to accurately describe and understand the social world.
Having now described how social scientists investigate the social world, we turn to the politics of research. What is meant by the ‘politics of research’? Gelles (2007, p.42) uses the term to mean “how research is utilized, abused, and misused in policy and practice”. Similarly Babbie (2007, pp.74, 77) writes that political issues in social research are concerned with the findings of the research and how these are used, noting that “there is probably a political dimension to every attempt to study human social behaviour.” The politics of research therefore refers to how research is applied, and what it means to various interested parties or ‘stake holders’.
Giddens (1997, p.551) notes that “sociological research is rarely of interest only to the intellectual community of sociologists... [but is] ...often disseminated more widely.” Among those interested are members of the public, the government and the media. Social scientists study contentious issues, phenomena that people have much invested in. Members of the public care less about the extinction of a particular forest species or the mechanics of light and sound than they do about their children’s education, their access to healthcare, gender inequalities in the workplace or their likelihood of finding themselves unemployed. The findings of social scientists often inform the ‘common sense’ opinions of the public (Giddens, 1997, p.551), and thus members of the public are stake holders in research.
Politicians are also interested in social research. Social science especially is open to political interference because it is concerned with social life, and this is also the domain of Politics, the arena of policy-making and government (Babbie, 2007, p.79). Politicians need research done; Hodgetts et al. (2004, p.457) note that government can act on issues brought to its attention by social research, as the New Zealand government did with the findings of Decades of Disparity by addressing the health inequalities the report identified as existing between Maori and Pacific populations and the wider population. The authors of the study, Ajwani et al. (2003, p.1), also assert that governments need “reliable and valid information on population health outcomes, how equitably these outcomes are distributed, and the causes or determinants of both the level and distribution of these health outcomes” to reach their health goals. Governments use the information provided by social researchers to decide both where to intervene and how effective these interventions are.
Babbie (2007, p.77) notes that social research is intimately bound up with policy-making and government, and as an example he notes Laumann’s proposed 1987 studies of human sexual behaviour at different stages of life, requested by the National Institutes of Health to direct funding to populations at risk of HIV/AIDS in the United States. Politicians decried this proposed research as being intended to legitimate homosexuality, and diverted the requested public funding to ‘abstinence-only’ sex education for teens. Laumann therefore had to apply for funding from private foundations, and published his findings some years later (The Social Organisation of Sexuality, 1994), but the above is illustrative of the intertwined nature of Politics and social research, and of the fact that politics come into play in research inquiries even before the research is conducted. In this case, the politics of research and funding limited the size and extent of the study.
Another example of the intersection of Politics and research given by Babbie (2007, pp.77-78) is census data, which is collected every few years in different states around the world and used to determine proportionate representation. Parties that have reliable voting blocks (for instance, the Democrats in the United States, who rely on the fact that the urban poor overwhelmingly vote Democratic) are resistant to changes in counting or method, as this might weaken their position. Political parties are important stake holders in social research.
One of the most important ways that social research findings are disseminated is through the news media. Hodgetts et al. (2004, p. 458, 470) note that policy makers are part of the audience of the mediated reporting of research findings, and argue that addressing media coverage of research is important because the media is an important influence on policy formation, as politicians take the content of media reports as a good indication of what the public understands and supports. Hodgetts et al. (2004, pp.455, 458 & 470) note that in New Zealand as in other former colonial societies, media and government are dominated by the heirs to the colonising power (in New Zealand, by Pakeha), and there is a real media reluctance to report research findings that challenge the status quo and advocate societal change, with the effect that such findings are often misrepresented by the media [as was the case with the Decades of Disparity report, which media commentators characterised as attributing Maori and Pacific peoples’ greater ill-health and higher mortality to their own ineptitude and carelessness when the study itself had stressed structural explanations]; this means that researchers “need to become more actively involved in issue management”. Babbie (2007, p.80), citing Gans (2002), notes that social scientists have an obligation to speak out on social issues, because social scientists have in-depth knowledge of society and social inequalities, and can therefore shed much light on contentious issues.
This position is shared by Marxists and Neo-Marxists, who often believe that research should inspire and contribute to activism for social change, that research which stops at description and explanation of social phenomenon can be used to legitimate or justify existing inequalities, and as such it is irresponsible for researchers to ignore the social consequences of their research (Babbie, 2007, p.75). Certainly social researchers often become deeply committed to and involved with civil rights movements, such as the anti-segregation movements in the United States (Babbie, 2007, p.76).
Babbie (2007, pp.74-75) notes that in research “there are no formal codes of accepted political conduct” as there are ethical codes, but that it is generally accepted that a researcher’s own political views should be kept out of their research, they should try to be objective, to aspire to Weber’s value-free sociology. This means avoiding the temptation to distort one’s own research findings or use “shoddy techniques” to further one’s own political agenda, as is occasionally the case. Exodus International in the United States, for example, is known for publishing substandard articles and misrepresenting the research of others to achieve their political goals (Grace, 2008, p.547). But perhaps social scientists cannot in fact be objective, as human beings studying the behaviour of other human beings; if so, then perhaps the most that can be achieved is a degree of intersubjectivity, whereby anyone, regardless of their personal political views, should be able to come to the same conclusions using the appropriate techniques (Babbie, 2007, p.75).
Postmodern perspectives, which consider all claims to ‘truth’ equally valid, are increasingly being adopted by social researchers, and a principle tenet of postmodern social analysis is the assumption that objectivity is impossible (Bilton et al., 1996, pp.102, 129, 610). Babbie (2007, pp.76-77, 78) argues that “social research in relation to contested social issues simply cannot remain antiseptically objective,” and notes that doing research on hot topics opens the researcher up to a great deal of backlash. A researcher can come under personal attack from people who feel threatened by their findings, even within academia, other researchers who are attached to established wisdom or ideology can savage the work of others. It can be difficult, in such contexts, not to overstate or underplay the significance of one’s findings, and given the time and effort that has gone into the research process it is understandable that researchers may be defensive about their work. Impartiality in regards to one’s work is difficult, if not impossible. And yet it remains true that conflict in science actually benefits in that it serves as a source of inspiration, directs inquiry and forces researchers to refine their arguments, (Babbie, 2007, p.80).
In sum, there is more to research than just conducting a study; the research process is at all stages bound up in political concerns. What is eventually studied is influenced from the outset by the researcher’s own biases and interests, as well as by practical limitations such as securing adequate funding. In conducting the actual research, the researcher must be careful to remain as intellectually honest and objective as possible, and yet we should be aware that this may prove difficult and that certainly in some cases, the researcher’s personal political views have influenced their findings and the presentation of those findings. Researchers should be especially aware of these concerns where the research or its findings are particularly contentious. In conducting social research, they should be aware also that their findings may become part of wider public discourse, informing public opinion and government policy, and as such, that their research may have very real consequences for people in society. Further, researchers should be aware that their research is subject to interpretation by media and that their findings may be misinterpreted or perhaps appropriated by interest groups that will misrepresent them, and therefore be prepared to engage with media to minimise such occurrences.
References
Ajwani, S., Blakely, T., Robson, B., Tobias, M. & Bonne, M. (2003) Decades of Disparity: Ethnic mortality trends in New Zealand 1980 - 1999. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health & University of Otago [extracts], pp.i-14, 45-54.
Babbie, E. (2007). The Practice of Social Research (11th Ed.), Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth.
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Sheard, K., Stanworth, M., Webster, A. (1996). Introductory Sociology, (3rd Ed). Macmillan Press: London.
Chamberlain, K. (2000). Methodolatry and qualitative health research. Journal of Health Psychology, 5(3), 285-296.
Gelles, R. J. (2007). The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of social science data – the cases of Intimate Partner Violence. Family Court Review, 45(1), 42–51.
Retrieved 10/09/09 from
http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/july07/Politics%20of%20research.pdf
Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology (3rd Ed). Polity Press: Cambridge.
Grace, A. (2008). The Charisma and Deception of Reparative Therapies: When Medical Science Beds Religion. Journal of Homosexuality, 55(4), 545-580.
Retrieved 20/09/09 from
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/114641_751308139_906684075.pdf
Hargreaves, K. (2006). Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(3), 261-283.
Hodgetts, D., Masters, B., & Robertson, N. (2004). Media coverage of ‘Decades of Disparity’ in ethnic mortality in Aotearoa. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, 14,455-472.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd Ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand,
pp. 77-95.
Understanding Social Life
by Danny Rudd
"Critically discuss the relationship between the politics of research and how social scientists investigate the social world."
Course Coordinators:
Lesley Patterson, Avril Bell
The research process does not begin and end with the conducting of a study, rather, research inquiries are always situated within political contexts, and may have wide-ranging and possibly unintended consequences. In conducting research, social scientists strive to be objective and systematic, however their attempts to impose scientific rigour in the investigation of social phenomena may ultimately be unrealistic, as the politics of research that come into play may render such attempts at objectivity futile. What then are the politics surrounding research, and how do they constrain or enable research inquiries?
To understand the relationship between the politics of research and how social scientists investigate the social world, we first must define what is meant by the ‘politics of research’ and ‘how social scientists investigate the social world.’ We begin with the latter question: how do social scientists investigate the social world? Commonly employed research techniques include conducting interviews, designing and administering survey questionnaires, engaging in participant observation and making use of well-chosen informers to create ethnographies, life-histories and analyses of recorded communications and other representations by means of content analysis and semiotic analysis (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley, 2004, pp.12-13). A fundamental difference between these methods is whether the techniques employed are quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative research may be characterised as “based on precise measurement” (Bilton et al., 1996, p.109), concerned primarily with description of the parameters of a population in regards to a variable or variables. Chamberlain (2000, p.290) notes that in quantitative analysis description is seen as a perfectly valid and desirable outcome. Ajwani et al.’s (2003) Decades of Disparity: Ethnic mortality trends in New Zealand 1980 – 1999, which counts and compares mortality across ethnic and gender and age categories in New Zealand, is an example of quantitative analysis.
Qualitative research, on the other hand, can be described as “the nonnumerical examination and interpretation of observations, for the purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships” (Babbie, 2007, p.378). It is concerned more with the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ than with precise measurements. Chamberlain, (2000, p.286) notes an increasing acceptance of qualitative work in sociology, health psychology and other fields, and suggests that this is indicative of “changing notions” of what constitutes research. Qualitative methods include participant observation, content analysis, case-studies, life histories and interviews (Babbie, 2007, p.377), such as those conducted by Hargreaves for her study Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination (2006). What all these quantitative and qualitative methods have in common is that they are critical, reflexive, and disciplined (Bilton et al., 1996, p.100), they are systematic and methodical attempts to accurately describe and understand the social world.
Having now described how social scientists investigate the social world, we turn to the politics of research. What is meant by the ‘politics of research’? Gelles (2007, p.42) uses the term to mean “how research is utilized, abused, and misused in policy and practice”. Similarly Babbie (2007, pp.74, 77) writes that political issues in social research are concerned with the findings of the research and how these are used, noting that “there is probably a political dimension to every attempt to study human social behaviour.” The politics of research therefore refers to how research is applied, and what it means to various interested parties or ‘stake holders’.
Giddens (1997, p.551) notes that “sociological research is rarely of interest only to the intellectual community of sociologists... [but is] ...often disseminated more widely.” Among those interested are members of the public, the government and the media. Social scientists study contentious issues, phenomena that people have much invested in. Members of the public care less about the extinction of a particular forest species or the mechanics of light and sound than they do about their children’s education, their access to healthcare, gender inequalities in the workplace or their likelihood of finding themselves unemployed. The findings of social scientists often inform the ‘common sense’ opinions of the public (Giddens, 1997, p.551), and thus members of the public are stake holders in research.
Politicians are also interested in social research. Social science especially is open to political interference because it is concerned with social life, and this is also the domain of Politics, the arena of policy-making and government (Babbie, 2007, p.79). Politicians need research done; Hodgetts et al. (2004, p.457) note that government can act on issues brought to its attention by social research, as the New Zealand government did with the findings of Decades of Disparity by addressing the health inequalities the report identified as existing between Maori and Pacific populations and the wider population. The authors of the study, Ajwani et al. (2003, p.1), also assert that governments need “reliable and valid information on population health outcomes, how equitably these outcomes are distributed, and the causes or determinants of both the level and distribution of these health outcomes” to reach their health goals. Governments use the information provided by social researchers to decide both where to intervene and how effective these interventions are.
Babbie (2007, p.77) notes that social research is intimately bound up with policy-making and government, and as an example he notes Laumann’s proposed 1987 studies of human sexual behaviour at different stages of life, requested by the National Institutes of Health to direct funding to populations at risk of HIV/AIDS in the United States. Politicians decried this proposed research as being intended to legitimate homosexuality, and diverted the requested public funding to ‘abstinence-only’ sex education for teens. Laumann therefore had to apply for funding from private foundations, and published his findings some years later (The Social Organisation of Sexuality, 1994), but the above is illustrative of the intertwined nature of Politics and social research, and of the fact that politics come into play in research inquiries even before the research is conducted. In this case, the politics of research and funding limited the size and extent of the study.
Another example of the intersection of Politics and research given by Babbie (2007, pp.77-78) is census data, which is collected every few years in different states around the world and used to determine proportionate representation. Parties that have reliable voting blocks (for instance, the Democrats in the United States, who rely on the fact that the urban poor overwhelmingly vote Democratic) are resistant to changes in counting or method, as this might weaken their position. Political parties are important stake holders in social research.
One of the most important ways that social research findings are disseminated is through the news media. Hodgetts et al. (2004, p. 458, 470) note that policy makers are part of the audience of the mediated reporting of research findings, and argue that addressing media coverage of research is important because the media is an important influence on policy formation, as politicians take the content of media reports as a good indication of what the public understands and supports. Hodgetts et al. (2004, pp.455, 458 & 470) note that in New Zealand as in other former colonial societies, media and government are dominated by the heirs to the colonising power (in New Zealand, by Pakeha), and there is a real media reluctance to report research findings that challenge the status quo and advocate societal change, with the effect that such findings are often misrepresented by the media [as was the case with the Decades of Disparity report, which media commentators characterised as attributing Maori and Pacific peoples’ greater ill-health and higher mortality to their own ineptitude and carelessness when the study itself had stressed structural explanations]; this means that researchers “need to become more actively involved in issue management”. Babbie (2007, p.80), citing Gans (2002), notes that social scientists have an obligation to speak out on social issues, because social scientists have in-depth knowledge of society and social inequalities, and can therefore shed much light on contentious issues.
This position is shared by Marxists and Neo-Marxists, who often believe that research should inspire and contribute to activism for social change, that research which stops at description and explanation of social phenomenon can be used to legitimate or justify existing inequalities, and as such it is irresponsible for researchers to ignore the social consequences of their research (Babbie, 2007, p.75). Certainly social researchers often become deeply committed to and involved with civil rights movements, such as the anti-segregation movements in the United States (Babbie, 2007, p.76).
Babbie (2007, pp.74-75) notes that in research “there are no formal codes of accepted political conduct” as there are ethical codes, but that it is generally accepted that a researcher’s own political views should be kept out of their research, they should try to be objective, to aspire to Weber’s value-free sociology. This means avoiding the temptation to distort one’s own research findings or use “shoddy techniques” to further one’s own political agenda, as is occasionally the case. Exodus International in the United States, for example, is known for publishing substandard articles and misrepresenting the research of others to achieve their political goals (Grace, 2008, p.547). But perhaps social scientists cannot in fact be objective, as human beings studying the behaviour of other human beings; if so, then perhaps the most that can be achieved is a degree of intersubjectivity, whereby anyone, regardless of their personal political views, should be able to come to the same conclusions using the appropriate techniques (Babbie, 2007, p.75).
Postmodern perspectives, which consider all claims to ‘truth’ equally valid, are increasingly being adopted by social researchers, and a principle tenet of postmodern social analysis is the assumption that objectivity is impossible (Bilton et al., 1996, pp.102, 129, 610). Babbie (2007, pp.76-77, 78) argues that “social research in relation to contested social issues simply cannot remain antiseptically objective,” and notes that doing research on hot topics opens the researcher up to a great deal of backlash. A researcher can come under personal attack from people who feel threatened by their findings, even within academia, other researchers who are attached to established wisdom or ideology can savage the work of others. It can be difficult, in such contexts, not to overstate or underplay the significance of one’s findings, and given the time and effort that has gone into the research process it is understandable that researchers may be defensive about their work. Impartiality in regards to one’s work is difficult, if not impossible. And yet it remains true that conflict in science actually benefits in that it serves as a source of inspiration, directs inquiry and forces researchers to refine their arguments, (Babbie, 2007, p.80).
In sum, there is more to research than just conducting a study; the research process is at all stages bound up in political concerns. What is eventually studied is influenced from the outset by the researcher’s own biases and interests, as well as by practical limitations such as securing adequate funding. In conducting the actual research, the researcher must be careful to remain as intellectually honest and objective as possible, and yet we should be aware that this may prove difficult and that certainly in some cases, the researcher’s personal political views have influenced their findings and the presentation of those findings. Researchers should be especially aware of these concerns where the research or its findings are particularly contentious. In conducting social research, they should be aware also that their findings may become part of wider public discourse, informing public opinion and government policy, and as such, that their research may have very real consequences for people in society. Further, researchers should be aware that their research is subject to interpretation by media and that their findings may be misinterpreted or perhaps appropriated by interest groups that will misrepresent them, and therefore be prepared to engage with media to minimise such occurrences.
References
Ajwani, S., Blakely, T., Robson, B., Tobias, M. & Bonne, M. (2003) Decades of Disparity: Ethnic mortality trends in New Zealand 1980 - 1999. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health & University of Otago [extracts], pp.i-14, 45-54.
Babbie, E. (2007). The Practice of Social Research (11th Ed.), Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth.
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Sheard, K., Stanworth, M., Webster, A. (1996). Introductory Sociology, (3rd Ed). Macmillan Press: London.
Chamberlain, K. (2000). Methodolatry and qualitative health research. Journal of Health Psychology, 5(3), 285-296.
Gelles, R. J. (2007). The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of social science data – the cases of Intimate Partner Violence. Family Court Review, 45(1), 42–51.
Retrieved 10/09/09 from
http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/july07/Politics%20of%20research.pdf
Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology (3rd Ed). Polity Press: Cambridge.
Grace, A. (2008). The Charisma and Deception of Reparative Therapies: When Medical Science Beds Religion. Journal of Homosexuality, 55(4), 545-580.
Retrieved 20/09/09 from
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/114641_751308139_906684075.pdf
Hargreaves, K. (2006). Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(3), 261-283.
Hodgetts, D., Masters, B., & Robertson, N. (2004). Media coverage of ‘Decades of Disparity’ in ethnic mortality in Aotearoa. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, 14,455-472.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd Ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand,
pp. 77-95.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
It Has To Be Said...
The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists
By Johann Hari
Retrieved 02/09/09 from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html
The news that Jorg Haider - the Austrian fascist leader - spent his final few hours in a gay bar with a hot blond has shocked some people. It hasn't shocked me. This is a taboo topic for a gay left-wing man like me to touch, but there has always been a weird, disproportionate overlap between homosexuality and fascism. Take a deep breath; here goes.
Some 10,000 gay people were slaughtered in the Nazi death-camps. Many more were humiliated, jailed, deported, ethnically cleansed, or castrated. One gay survivor of the camps, LD Classen von Neudegg, has written about his experiences. A snapshot: "Three men had tried to escape one night. They were captured, and when they returned they had the word 'homo' scrawled across their clothing. They were placed on a block and whipped. Then they were forced to beat a drum and cheer, 'Hurrah! We're back! Hurrah!' Then they were hanged." This is one of the milder events documented in his book.
So the idea of a gay fascist seems ridiculous. Yet when the British National Party - our own home-grown Holocaust-denying bigots - announced it was fielding an openly gay candidate in the European elections this June, dedicated followers of fascism didn't blink. The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay. It's time to admit something. Fascism isn't something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is - in part, at least - a gay thing, and it's time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music.
Just look at our own continent over the past decade. Dutch fascist Pim Fortuyn ran on blatantly racist anti-immigrant platform, describing Islam as "a cancer" and "the biggest threat to Western civilisation today." Yet with two little fluffy dogs and a Mamma complex, he was openly, flamboyantly gay. When accused by a political opponent of hating Arabs, he replied, "How can I hate Arabs? I sucked one off last night."
Jorg Haider blasted Austria's cosy post-Nazi politics to rubble in 2000 when his neo-fascist 'Freedom Party' won a quarter of the vote and joined the country's government as a coalition partner. Several facts always cropped up in the international press coverage: his square jaw, his muscled torso, his SS-supporting father, his rabid anti-Semitism, his hatred of immigrants, his description of Auschwitz and Dachau as "punishment centres". A few newspapers mentioned that he is always surrounded by fit, fanatical young men. A handful went further and pointed out that several of these young men are openly gay. Then one left-wing German paper broke the story everybody else was hinting at. They alleged Haider is gay.
Rumours of an Indian waiter with "intimate details" of Haider's body broke into the press. The Freedom Party's general manager Gerald Miscka quickly quit, amid accusations that he was Haider's lover. Haider's close gay friend Walter Kohler - who has been photographed showing off a holstered pistol while Haider chuckled - declared his opposition to outing politicians. Haider - who was married and has two children - kept quiet while his functionaries denied the rumours. The revelation that he died after leaving a gay bar suggests these rumours were true.
On and on it goes. If you inter-railed across Europe, only stopping with gay fascists, there aren't many sights you'd miss. France's leading post-war fascist was Edouard Pfieffer, who was not batting for the straight side. Germany's leading neo-Nazi all through the eighties was called Michael Kuhnen; he died of AIDS in 1991 a few years after coming out. Martin Lee, author of a study of European fascism, explains, "For Kuhnen, there was something supermacho about being a Nazi, as well as being a homosexual, both of which enforced his sense of living on the edge, of belonging to an elite that was destined to make an impact. He told a West German journalist that homosexuals were 'especially well-suited for our task, because they do not want ties to wife, children and family.'"
And it wouldn't be long before your whistlestop tour arrived in Britain. At first glance, our Nazis seem militantly straight. They have tried to disrupt gay parades, describe gay people as "evil", and BNP leader Nick Griffin reacted charmingly to the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in 1999 with a column saying, "The TV footage of gay demonstrators [outside the scene of carnage] flaunting their perversion in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures repulsive."
But scratch to homophobic surface and there's a spandex swastika underneath. In 1999, Martin Webster, a former National Front organiser and head honcho in the British fascist movement, wrote a four-page pamphlet detailing his 'affair' with Nick Griffin. "Griffin sought out intimate relations with me," openly-gay Webster explained, "in the late 1970s. He was twenty years younger than me." Ray Hill, who infiltrated the British fascist movement for twelve years to gather information for anti-fascist groups, says it's all too plausible. Homosexuality is "extremely prevalent" in the upper echelons of the British far right, and at one stage in the 1980s nearly half of the movement's organisers were gay, he claims.
Gerry Gable, editor of the anti-fascist magazine 'Searchlight', explains, "I have looked at Britain's Nazi groups for decades and this homophobic hypocrisy has been there all the time. I cannot think of any organisation on the extreme right that hasn't attacked people on the grounds of their sexual preference and at the same time contained many gay officers and activists."
Griffins' alleged gay affair would stand in a long British fascist tradition. The leader of the skinhead movement all through the 1970s was a crazed, muscled thug called Nicky Crane. He was the icon of a reactionary backlash against immigrants, feminism and the 'hippy' lifetsyle of the 1960s. His movement's emphasis on conformity to a shaven, dehumanised norm resembled classical fascist movements; Crane soon became a campaigner and leading figure in the National Front. Oh, and he was gay. Before he died of AIDS in the mid-1980s, Crane came out and admitted he had starred in many gay porn videos. Just before he died in 1986, he was allowed to steward a Gay Pride march in London, even though he still said he was "proud to be a fascist."
The rubber-soled friction between gay fascists and progressive British gay people sparked into anger in 1985 when the Gay Skinhead Movement organised a disco at London's Gay Centre. Several lesbians in particular objected to the "invasion" of the centre. They felt that the cult of "real men" and hypermasculine thugs was stirring up the most base feelings "in the very place, the gay movement, where you would least expect them."
And this Gaystapo has an icon to revere, an alternative Fuhrer to worship: the lost gay fascist leader Ernst Rohm. Along with Adolf Hitler, Rohm was the founding father of Nazism. Born to conservative Bavarian civil servants in 1887, Ernst Rohm's life began - in his view - in the "heroic" trenches of the First World War. Like so many of the generation who formed the Nazi Party, he was nurtured by and obsessed with the homoerotic myth of the trenches - heroic, beautiful boys prepared to die for their brothers and their country.
He emerged from the war with a bullet-scarred face and a reverence for war. As he put it in his autobiography, "Since I am an immature and wicked man, war and unrest appeal to me more than the good bourgeois order." After being disbanded, he tried half-heartedly to get a foothold in civilian life, but he saw it as alien, bourgeois, boring. He had no political beliefs, only prejudices - particularly hatred of Jews. Historian Joachim Fest describes Rohm's generation of alienated, demobbed young men humiliated by defeat as "agents of a permanent revolution without any revolutionary idea of the future, only a wish to eternalize the values of the trenches."
It was Rohm who first spotted the potential of a soap-box ranter called Adolf Hitler. He saw him as the demagogue he needed to mobilize support for his plan to overthrow democracy and establish a "soldier's state" where the army ruled untrammelled. He introduced the young fascist to local politicians and military leaders; they knew him for many years as "Rohm's boy." Gay historian Frank Rector notes, "Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Rohm's protégé." Rohm integrated Hitler into his underground movement to overthrow the Weimar Republic.
Rohm's blatant, out homosexuality seems bizarre now, given the gay genocide that was to follow. He talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and was known for his virility. He believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm "projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute... He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same. He believed straight people weren't as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA." They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning "hysterical women of both sexes", in reference to feminine gay men.
This belief in the superiority of homosexuality had a strong German tradition that grew up at the turn of the twentieth century around Adolf Brand, publisher of the country's first gay magazine. You could call it 'Queer as Volk': they preached that gay men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented an elite, warrior caste that should rule. They venerated the ancient warrior cults of Sparta, Thebes and Athens.
Rohm often referred to the ancient Greek tradition of sending gay solider couples into battle, because they were believed to be the most ferocious fighters. The famous pass of Thermopylae, for example was held by 300 soldiers - who consisted of 150 gay couples. In its early years, the SA - Hitler and Rohm's underground army - was seen as predominantly gay. Rohm assigned prominent posts to his lovers, making Edmund Heines his deputy and Karl Ernst the SA commander in Berlin. The organisation would sometimes meet in gay bars. The gay art historian Christian Isermayer said in an interview, "I got to know people in the SA. They used to throw riotous parties even in 1933... I once attended one. It was quite well-behaved but thoroughly gay. But then, in those days, the SA was ultra-gay."
On June 30th 1934, Rohm was awoken in a Berlin hotel by Hitler himself. He sprang to his feet and saluted, calling, "Heil Mein Fuhrer!" Hitler said simply, "You are under arrest," and with that he left the room, giving orders for Rohm to be taken to Standelheim prison. He was shot that night. Rohm was the most high-profile kill in the massacre known as 'the Night of the Long Knives'.
Rohm had been suspected by Hitler of disloyalty, but his murder began a massive crackdown on gay people. Heinrich Himmler, head of the Gestapo, described homosexuality as "a symptom of degeneracy that could destroy our race. We must return to the guiding Nordic principle: extermination of degenerates."
German historian Lothar Machtan argues that Hitler had Rohm - and almost all of the large number of gay figures within the SA - killed to silence speculation about his own homosexual experiences. His 'evidence' for Hitler being gay is shaky and has been questioned by many historians, although some of his findings are at least suggestive. A close friend of Hitler's during his teenager years, August Kubizek, alleged a "romantic" affair between them. Hans Mend, a despatch rider who served alongside Hitler in the First World War, claimed to have seen Hitler having sex with a man. Hitler was certainly very close to several gay men, and never seems to have had a normal sexual relationship with a woman, not even his wife, Eva Braun.
Rudolph Diels, the founder of the Gestapo, recorded some of Hitler's private thoughts on homosexuality. "It had destroyed ancient Greece, he said. Once rife, it extended its contagious effects like an ineluctable law of nature to the best and most manly of characters, eliminating from the breeding pool the very men the Volk most needs." This idea - that homosexuality is 'contagious' and, implicitly, tempting - is revealing.
Rohm is venerated on the Homo-Nazi sites that have bred on the internet like germs in a wound. They have names like Gays Against Semitism (with the charming acronym GAS), and the Aryan Resistance Corps (ARC). Their Rohmite philosophy is simple: while white men are superior to other races, gay men are "the masters of the Master Race". They alone are endowed with the "capacity for pure male bonding" and the "superior intellect" that is needed for "a fascist revolution." The ARC even organises holiday "get-togethers" for its members where "you can relax amongst the company of our fellow white brothers."
So it's fairly easy to establish that gay people are not inoculated from fascism. They have often been at its heart. This begs the bigger question: why? How did gay people - so often victims of oppression and hate - become integral to the most hateful and evil political movement of all? Is it just an extreme form of self-harm, the political equivalent to the gay kids who slash their own arms to ribbons out of self-hate?
Gay pornographer and film-maker Bruce LaBruce has one explanation. He claims that "all gay porn today is implictly fascist. Fascism is in our bones, because it's all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures." He has tried to explore the relationship between homosexuality and fascism in his movies, beginning with 'No Skin Off My Ass' in 1991. In his disturbing 1999 film "Skin Flick', a bourgeois gay couple - one black, one white - are sexually terrorised by a gang of gay skinheads who beat off to 'Mein Kampf' and beat up 'femmes'. He implies that bourgeois gay norms quickly break down to reveal a fascist lurking underneath; the movie ends with the black character being raped in front of his half-aroused white lover, as the racist gang chant, "Fuck the monkey."
I decided to track down some gay fascists and ask them directly. Wyatt Powers, director of the ARC, says, "I always knew in my heart racist and gay were both morally right. I don't see any conflict between them. It's only the Jew-owned gay press that tries to convince us that racialism is the same thing as homophobia. You can be an extreme nationalist and gay without any contradiction at all."
One comment board on a gay racist website goes even further into racist lunacy. One gay man from Ohio says, "Even if you are gay and white, or retarded and white, YOU ARE WHITE, BOTTOM LINE! Instead of letting the white race go extinct because of worthless races such as the Africans or Mexicans popping out literally millions of babies a day, we have to fight this fucked up shit they are doing. They are raping our country." It's true that racism and homophobia do not necessarily overlap - but as Rabbi Bernard Melchman explains, "Homophobia and anti-Semitism are so often part of the same disease." Racists are usually homophobic. Even after reading all their web rantings, I didn't feel any closer to understanding why so many gay men ally themselves with people who will almost always turn on them in the end, just as the Nazis did.
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has a sensitive and intriguing explanation. "There are many reasons for this kind of thing," he says. "Some of them are in denial. They are going for hyper-masculinity, the most extreme possible way of being a man. It's a way of ostentatiously rejecting the perceived effeminacy of the homosexual 'Other'. These troubled men have a simple belief in their minds: 'Straight men are tough. Queers are weak. Therefore if I'm tough I can't be queer.' It's a desperate way of proving their manhood."
'Searchlight' magazine - the bible of the British anti-fascist movement, with moles in every major far-right organisation - offers an alternative explanation. "Generally condemned by a society that continues to be largely hostile to gays, some men may find refuge and a new power status in the far right," one of their writers has explained. "Through adherence to the politics espoused by fascist groups, a new identity emerges - one where they aren't outcasts, because they are White Men, superior to everyone else. They render the gay part of their identity invisible - or reject the socially less acceptable parts, like being feminine - while vaunting what they see as superior."
But there's another important question: will fascist movements inevitably turn on gay people? In the case of the Nazis, it seems to have been fairly arbitrary; Hitler's main reason for killing Rohm was unrelated to his sexuality. From my perspective as a progressive-minded leftie, all fascism is evil; but should all gay people see it as inimical to their interests? Is it possible to have a gay fascist who wasn't acting against his own interests? Fascism is often defined as "a political ideology advocating hierarchical government that systematically denies equality to certain groups." It's true that this hierarchy could benefit gay people at the expense of, say, black people. But given the prevalence of homophobia, isn't that - even for people who don't see fascism as inherently evil - a terrible risk to take? Won't a culture that turns viciously on one minority get around to gay people in the end? This seems, ultimately, to be the lesson of Ernst Rohm's pitiful, squalid little life.
The growing awareness of the role gay men play in fascist movements has been abused by some homophobes. In an especially nutty work of revisionist history called 'The Pink Swastika', the 'historian' Scott Lively tries to blame gay people for the entire Holocaust, and describes the murder of gay men in the camps as merely "gay-on-gay violence." A typical website commenting on the book claims absurdly, "The Pink Swastika shows that there was far more brutality, rape, torture and murder committed against innocent people by Nazi homosexuals than there even was against homosexuals themselves."
Yet we can't allow these madmen to prevent a period of serious self-reflection from the gay movement. If Bruce LaBruce is right, many of the mainstream elements of gay culture - body worship, the lauding of the strong, a fetish for authority figures and cruelty - provide a swamp in which the fascist virus can thrive. Do some gay people really still need to learn that fascists will not bring on a Fabulous Solution for gay people, but a Final Solution for us all?
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper.
By Johann Hari
Retrieved 02/09/09 from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html
The news that Jorg Haider - the Austrian fascist leader - spent his final few hours in a gay bar with a hot blond has shocked some people. It hasn't shocked me. This is a taboo topic for a gay left-wing man like me to touch, but there has always been a weird, disproportionate overlap between homosexuality and fascism. Take a deep breath; here goes.
Some 10,000 gay people were slaughtered in the Nazi death-camps. Many more were humiliated, jailed, deported, ethnically cleansed, or castrated. One gay survivor of the camps, LD Classen von Neudegg, has written about his experiences. A snapshot: "Three men had tried to escape one night. They were captured, and when they returned they had the word 'homo' scrawled across their clothing. They were placed on a block and whipped. Then they were forced to beat a drum and cheer, 'Hurrah! We're back! Hurrah!' Then they were hanged." This is one of the milder events documented in his book.
So the idea of a gay fascist seems ridiculous. Yet when the British National Party - our own home-grown Holocaust-denying bigots - announced it was fielding an openly gay candidate in the European elections this June, dedicated followers of fascism didn't blink. The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay. It's time to admit something. Fascism isn't something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is - in part, at least - a gay thing, and it's time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music.
Just look at our own continent over the past decade. Dutch fascist Pim Fortuyn ran on blatantly racist anti-immigrant platform, describing Islam as "a cancer" and "the biggest threat to Western civilisation today." Yet with two little fluffy dogs and a Mamma complex, he was openly, flamboyantly gay. When accused by a political opponent of hating Arabs, he replied, "How can I hate Arabs? I sucked one off last night."
Jorg Haider blasted Austria's cosy post-Nazi politics to rubble in 2000 when his neo-fascist 'Freedom Party' won a quarter of the vote and joined the country's government as a coalition partner. Several facts always cropped up in the international press coverage: his square jaw, his muscled torso, his SS-supporting father, his rabid anti-Semitism, his hatred of immigrants, his description of Auschwitz and Dachau as "punishment centres". A few newspapers mentioned that he is always surrounded by fit, fanatical young men. A handful went further and pointed out that several of these young men are openly gay. Then one left-wing German paper broke the story everybody else was hinting at. They alleged Haider is gay.
Rumours of an Indian waiter with "intimate details" of Haider's body broke into the press. The Freedom Party's general manager Gerald Miscka quickly quit, amid accusations that he was Haider's lover. Haider's close gay friend Walter Kohler - who has been photographed showing off a holstered pistol while Haider chuckled - declared his opposition to outing politicians. Haider - who was married and has two children - kept quiet while his functionaries denied the rumours. The revelation that he died after leaving a gay bar suggests these rumours were true.
On and on it goes. If you inter-railed across Europe, only stopping with gay fascists, there aren't many sights you'd miss. France's leading post-war fascist was Edouard Pfieffer, who was not batting for the straight side. Germany's leading neo-Nazi all through the eighties was called Michael Kuhnen; he died of AIDS in 1991 a few years after coming out. Martin Lee, author of a study of European fascism, explains, "For Kuhnen, there was something supermacho about being a Nazi, as well as being a homosexual, both of which enforced his sense of living on the edge, of belonging to an elite that was destined to make an impact. He told a West German journalist that homosexuals were 'especially well-suited for our task, because they do not want ties to wife, children and family.'"
And it wouldn't be long before your whistlestop tour arrived in Britain. At first glance, our Nazis seem militantly straight. They have tried to disrupt gay parades, describe gay people as "evil", and BNP leader Nick Griffin reacted charmingly to the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in 1999 with a column saying, "The TV footage of gay demonstrators [outside the scene of carnage] flaunting their perversion in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures repulsive."
But scratch to homophobic surface and there's a spandex swastika underneath. In 1999, Martin Webster, a former National Front organiser and head honcho in the British fascist movement, wrote a four-page pamphlet detailing his 'affair' with Nick Griffin. "Griffin sought out intimate relations with me," openly-gay Webster explained, "in the late 1970s. He was twenty years younger than me." Ray Hill, who infiltrated the British fascist movement for twelve years to gather information for anti-fascist groups, says it's all too plausible. Homosexuality is "extremely prevalent" in the upper echelons of the British far right, and at one stage in the 1980s nearly half of the movement's organisers were gay, he claims.
Gerry Gable, editor of the anti-fascist magazine 'Searchlight', explains, "I have looked at Britain's Nazi groups for decades and this homophobic hypocrisy has been there all the time. I cannot think of any organisation on the extreme right that hasn't attacked people on the grounds of their sexual preference and at the same time contained many gay officers and activists."
Griffins' alleged gay affair would stand in a long British fascist tradition. The leader of the skinhead movement all through the 1970s was a crazed, muscled thug called Nicky Crane. He was the icon of a reactionary backlash against immigrants, feminism and the 'hippy' lifetsyle of the 1960s. His movement's emphasis on conformity to a shaven, dehumanised norm resembled classical fascist movements; Crane soon became a campaigner and leading figure in the National Front. Oh, and he was gay. Before he died of AIDS in the mid-1980s, Crane came out and admitted he had starred in many gay porn videos. Just before he died in 1986, he was allowed to steward a Gay Pride march in London, even though he still said he was "proud to be a fascist."
The rubber-soled friction between gay fascists and progressive British gay people sparked into anger in 1985 when the Gay Skinhead Movement organised a disco at London's Gay Centre. Several lesbians in particular objected to the "invasion" of the centre. They felt that the cult of "real men" and hypermasculine thugs was stirring up the most base feelings "in the very place, the gay movement, where you would least expect them."
And this Gaystapo has an icon to revere, an alternative Fuhrer to worship: the lost gay fascist leader Ernst Rohm. Along with Adolf Hitler, Rohm was the founding father of Nazism. Born to conservative Bavarian civil servants in 1887, Ernst Rohm's life began - in his view - in the "heroic" trenches of the First World War. Like so many of the generation who formed the Nazi Party, he was nurtured by and obsessed with the homoerotic myth of the trenches - heroic, beautiful boys prepared to die for their brothers and their country.
He emerged from the war with a bullet-scarred face and a reverence for war. As he put it in his autobiography, "Since I am an immature and wicked man, war and unrest appeal to me more than the good bourgeois order." After being disbanded, he tried half-heartedly to get a foothold in civilian life, but he saw it as alien, bourgeois, boring. He had no political beliefs, only prejudices - particularly hatred of Jews. Historian Joachim Fest describes Rohm's generation of alienated, demobbed young men humiliated by defeat as "agents of a permanent revolution without any revolutionary idea of the future, only a wish to eternalize the values of the trenches."
It was Rohm who first spotted the potential of a soap-box ranter called Adolf Hitler. He saw him as the demagogue he needed to mobilize support for his plan to overthrow democracy and establish a "soldier's state" where the army ruled untrammelled. He introduced the young fascist to local politicians and military leaders; they knew him for many years as "Rohm's boy." Gay historian Frank Rector notes, "Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Rohm's protégé." Rohm integrated Hitler into his underground movement to overthrow the Weimar Republic.
Rohm's blatant, out homosexuality seems bizarre now, given the gay genocide that was to follow. He talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and was known for his virility. He believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm "projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute... He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same. He believed straight people weren't as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA." They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning "hysterical women of both sexes", in reference to feminine gay men.
This belief in the superiority of homosexuality had a strong German tradition that grew up at the turn of the twentieth century around Adolf Brand, publisher of the country's first gay magazine. You could call it 'Queer as Volk': they preached that gay men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented an elite, warrior caste that should rule. They venerated the ancient warrior cults of Sparta, Thebes and Athens.
Rohm often referred to the ancient Greek tradition of sending gay solider couples into battle, because they were believed to be the most ferocious fighters. The famous pass of Thermopylae, for example was held by 300 soldiers - who consisted of 150 gay couples. In its early years, the SA - Hitler and Rohm's underground army - was seen as predominantly gay. Rohm assigned prominent posts to his lovers, making Edmund Heines his deputy and Karl Ernst the SA commander in Berlin. The organisation would sometimes meet in gay bars. The gay art historian Christian Isermayer said in an interview, "I got to know people in the SA. They used to throw riotous parties even in 1933... I once attended one. It was quite well-behaved but thoroughly gay. But then, in those days, the SA was ultra-gay."
On June 30th 1934, Rohm was awoken in a Berlin hotel by Hitler himself. He sprang to his feet and saluted, calling, "Heil Mein Fuhrer!" Hitler said simply, "You are under arrest," and with that he left the room, giving orders for Rohm to be taken to Standelheim prison. He was shot that night. Rohm was the most high-profile kill in the massacre known as 'the Night of the Long Knives'.
Rohm had been suspected by Hitler of disloyalty, but his murder began a massive crackdown on gay people. Heinrich Himmler, head of the Gestapo, described homosexuality as "a symptom of degeneracy that could destroy our race. We must return to the guiding Nordic principle: extermination of degenerates."
German historian Lothar Machtan argues that Hitler had Rohm - and almost all of the large number of gay figures within the SA - killed to silence speculation about his own homosexual experiences. His 'evidence' for Hitler being gay is shaky and has been questioned by many historians, although some of his findings are at least suggestive. A close friend of Hitler's during his teenager years, August Kubizek, alleged a "romantic" affair between them. Hans Mend, a despatch rider who served alongside Hitler in the First World War, claimed to have seen Hitler having sex with a man. Hitler was certainly very close to several gay men, and never seems to have had a normal sexual relationship with a woman, not even his wife, Eva Braun.
Rudolph Diels, the founder of the Gestapo, recorded some of Hitler's private thoughts on homosexuality. "It had destroyed ancient Greece, he said. Once rife, it extended its contagious effects like an ineluctable law of nature to the best and most manly of characters, eliminating from the breeding pool the very men the Volk most needs." This idea - that homosexuality is 'contagious' and, implicitly, tempting - is revealing.
Rohm is venerated on the Homo-Nazi sites that have bred on the internet like germs in a wound. They have names like Gays Against Semitism (with the charming acronym GAS), and the Aryan Resistance Corps (ARC). Their Rohmite philosophy is simple: while white men are superior to other races, gay men are "the masters of the Master Race". They alone are endowed with the "capacity for pure male bonding" and the "superior intellect" that is needed for "a fascist revolution." The ARC even organises holiday "get-togethers" for its members where "you can relax amongst the company of our fellow white brothers."
So it's fairly easy to establish that gay people are not inoculated from fascism. They have often been at its heart. This begs the bigger question: why? How did gay people - so often victims of oppression and hate - become integral to the most hateful and evil political movement of all? Is it just an extreme form of self-harm, the political equivalent to the gay kids who slash their own arms to ribbons out of self-hate?
Gay pornographer and film-maker Bruce LaBruce has one explanation. He claims that "all gay porn today is implictly fascist. Fascism is in our bones, because it's all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures." He has tried to explore the relationship between homosexuality and fascism in his movies, beginning with 'No Skin Off My Ass' in 1991. In his disturbing 1999 film "Skin Flick', a bourgeois gay couple - one black, one white - are sexually terrorised by a gang of gay skinheads who beat off to 'Mein Kampf' and beat up 'femmes'. He implies that bourgeois gay norms quickly break down to reveal a fascist lurking underneath; the movie ends with the black character being raped in front of his half-aroused white lover, as the racist gang chant, "Fuck the monkey."
I decided to track down some gay fascists and ask them directly. Wyatt Powers, director of the ARC, says, "I always knew in my heart racist and gay were both morally right. I don't see any conflict between them. It's only the Jew-owned gay press that tries to convince us that racialism is the same thing as homophobia. You can be an extreme nationalist and gay without any contradiction at all."
One comment board on a gay racist website goes even further into racist lunacy. One gay man from Ohio says, "Even if you are gay and white, or retarded and white, YOU ARE WHITE, BOTTOM LINE! Instead of letting the white race go extinct because of worthless races such as the Africans or Mexicans popping out literally millions of babies a day, we have to fight this fucked up shit they are doing. They are raping our country." It's true that racism and homophobia do not necessarily overlap - but as Rabbi Bernard Melchman explains, "Homophobia and anti-Semitism are so often part of the same disease." Racists are usually homophobic. Even after reading all their web rantings, I didn't feel any closer to understanding why so many gay men ally themselves with people who will almost always turn on them in the end, just as the Nazis did.
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has a sensitive and intriguing explanation. "There are many reasons for this kind of thing," he says. "Some of them are in denial. They are going for hyper-masculinity, the most extreme possible way of being a man. It's a way of ostentatiously rejecting the perceived effeminacy of the homosexual 'Other'. These troubled men have a simple belief in their minds: 'Straight men are tough. Queers are weak. Therefore if I'm tough I can't be queer.' It's a desperate way of proving their manhood."
'Searchlight' magazine - the bible of the British anti-fascist movement, with moles in every major far-right organisation - offers an alternative explanation. "Generally condemned by a society that continues to be largely hostile to gays, some men may find refuge and a new power status in the far right," one of their writers has explained. "Through adherence to the politics espoused by fascist groups, a new identity emerges - one where they aren't outcasts, because they are White Men, superior to everyone else. They render the gay part of their identity invisible - or reject the socially less acceptable parts, like being feminine - while vaunting what they see as superior."
But there's another important question: will fascist movements inevitably turn on gay people? In the case of the Nazis, it seems to have been fairly arbitrary; Hitler's main reason for killing Rohm was unrelated to his sexuality. From my perspective as a progressive-minded leftie, all fascism is evil; but should all gay people see it as inimical to their interests? Is it possible to have a gay fascist who wasn't acting against his own interests? Fascism is often defined as "a political ideology advocating hierarchical government that systematically denies equality to certain groups." It's true that this hierarchy could benefit gay people at the expense of, say, black people. But given the prevalence of homophobia, isn't that - even for people who don't see fascism as inherently evil - a terrible risk to take? Won't a culture that turns viciously on one minority get around to gay people in the end? This seems, ultimately, to be the lesson of Ernst Rohm's pitiful, squalid little life.
The growing awareness of the role gay men play in fascist movements has been abused by some homophobes. In an especially nutty work of revisionist history called 'The Pink Swastika', the 'historian' Scott Lively tries to blame gay people for the entire Holocaust, and describes the murder of gay men in the camps as merely "gay-on-gay violence." A typical website commenting on the book claims absurdly, "The Pink Swastika shows that there was far more brutality, rape, torture and murder committed against innocent people by Nazi homosexuals than there even was against homosexuals themselves."
Yet we can't allow these madmen to prevent a period of serious self-reflection from the gay movement. If Bruce LaBruce is right, many of the mainstream elements of gay culture - body worship, the lauding of the strong, a fetish for authority figures and cruelty - provide a swamp in which the fascist virus can thrive. Do some gay people really still need to learn that fascists will not bring on a Fabulous Solution for gay people, but a Final Solution for us all?
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Social and Environmental Consequences of Current Global Trends in Food Production and Consumption
By DannyR
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
The following will focus on the social and environmental consequences of global food production and consumption trends, arguing that widespread reliance on convenience food, both for preparation within the home and for personal consumption away from home, has dire social and environmental consequences, including environmental degradation, loss of community, pervasive poor health from excessive consumption in developed nations and, perversely, widespread malnourishment and disease in developing nations. The essay first describes the historical shift from household self-sufficiency to supermarket shopping, the consumption of convenience foods and comfort-eating, outlining the consequences of this shift for individual health and the environment and noting that the social and environmental effects are often intertwined. We argue that the root of the problem is essentially social, and conclude that in order to rectify the environmental problem it is in fact necessary to address the social concerns.
‘Convenience food’ may be defined as “the domestic outsourcing of food planning, preparation and/or cooking” (Dixon et al., 2006, p.635). People in developed nations are growing and preparing their own food less frequently because packaged foods are seen to be more convenient (Thomas, 2006, p.4). Convenience foods are marketed as a way to overcome time shortages (Dixon et al., 2006, p.638). Americans spend almost half of their food dollars on meals outside the home (Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.172). We can make a distinction between the convenient food that is purchased for preparation in the home and that which is purchased for consumption outside the home. The former involves foods that are packaged for easy storage, preparation and consumption, whether the food item requires heating or cooking or not. The latter represents a broader category, including food that is purchased at restaurants, bakeries and cafes, but also individually wrapped single portions that may be purchased from ‘fast food’ establishments, small convenience outlets and grocery stores. Common to both categories, however, is the problem of the disposal of packaging materials after consumption. These materials vary from recyclable tins, glass jars and cardboard boxes and to more heavily processed packaging that meshes foil, paper and wax or plastic.
There has been a historical shift from people growing their own food and selling their surplus to a relatively smaller number of people producing and preparing foods to sell on the market, which has in turn led to expansion of the availability of convenience foods in the 20th Century, in restaurants, service stations, vending machines, cafes and more, but especially in fast-food restaurants (Dixon et al., 2006, p.637). This historical shift is described by Dixon et al. (2006, pp.634-645), who note that although conventional wisdom places its origins in European cities in the Middle-Ages with street vendors and continues that the trend became more deeply entrenched as the industrial revolution drew ever-greater numbers of people into the cities in pursuit of work, in fact there is a rich tradition of convenience foods the world over. Nevertheless, the shift has been observed within Western nations, and the ascendancy of the West has brought about a new and pervasive convenience food culture. The transition to this convenience food culture has been motivated largely by the time constraints imposed upon individuals by shifts in the nature of paid work, and by time and space limitations brought about by changes in housing due to increasing urbanisation and the trend toward fewer people owning their own properties.
The nature of work has gradually changed over the course of the 20th Century, largely as a result of globalisation and technological innovation. This had the effect of relocating the working class into positions within the ‘service sector,’ positions which are largely part-time or casual, increasing the hardship faced by the majority of workers, creating redundancies and increasing the demand for welfare assistance (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.296-297). More and more families needed a dual income to cope with expenses, and so increasingly women entered the job market (Labrum, 2000, pp.190-191). Women’s increased participation in the workforce has contributed to the increased popularity of convenience foods and the reliance on supermarkets; the weakening of the gendered division of labour in the home has meant that people have less time to grow and prepare their own food (Dixon et al., 2006, p.638). Supermarkets are ‘convenient’ because of the wide range of products available, easy parking, long opening hours and their ability to undercut competitors in prices (Scarpello et al., 2009, p.112).
Similarly, increasing urbanisation since the industrial revolution and suburbanisation since World War II with the accompanying problems of motorway gridlock, air and water pollution, and cramped living conditions has meant that people have less time and space with which to tend their own crops on which to subsist (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.40, 175-176). Even in rural settings, however, people obtain the bulk of their food from supermarkets (Scarpello et al., 2009, p.111), indicating that the expectations we have of the food we purchase have increased. The affluent in the Western world have come to expect convenience, taste, variety and the highest quality fresh foods, available all year round. These expectations have led to the transportation of foodstuffs across vast distances, often around the globe, and this combined with the increased awareness of food contamination in the 20th Century has led to an increase in food packaging.
Food that is transported great distances needs to be packaged to minimise nutrient loss and spoiling. Fresh foods that people buy in supermarkets are often nutritionally inferior, they have been transported great distances and are not at their best when purchased; they are also less nutritious than they once were because the way that we farm reduces genetic diversity, relies on pesticides and strips the land of its nutrients (Thomas, 2006, p.4). Packaging of foodstuffs has therefore assumed an added importance; Gvozdenovic et al. (1997, pp.529-536) note that appropriate packing prolongs a foodstuff’s shelf-life and ensures a high-quality product. They describe the optimum packaging for the transportation and long-term storage of foodstuffs as the collective or individual wrapping food items in inert atmosphere or a specially concocted mixture of gasses, sealed with the most appropriate combination of packaging materials for the particular foodstuff. The intention is to create a barrier between the food item and any contamination in the external world, but also to limit the movement of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen molecules to and from the product and thereby reduce spoiling. The barrier is almost invariably achieved through the employment of PET/PE plastics or multilayer high-barrier cling-foil, the latter being the most convenient for the preservation of foodstuffs.
Odunze et al. (2008, pp.114-117) note that convenient or packaged foods have a number of benefits for consumers, they save time, are easy to store, reduce food wastage and make the task of food preparation easier. The authors note that the pre-packaged, pre-priced goods available in supermarkets somewhat compensate for the reduced time that is available to women for queuing in stores and cooking breakfast meals as a result of increasing urbanisation. Using a surveys and interviews, the authors find that consumers prefer plastic food packaging to metal, glass or paper, particularly because of the ease of opening the packaging and the readability of nutritional information on such packaging.
The way we relate to food in the Western world has fundamentally changed. Food is quicker and easier to prepare than ever before, and as a result people are eating more frequently (Anand & Gray, 2009, p.183), eating larger servings (Dixon et al., 2006, p.635), and choosing “nutritionally inferior convenience foods” high in additives, salts, fats and sugars (Thomas, 2006, p.4). Alongside the growth of supermarkets and other providers of convenient foods for preparation in the home, another trend has emerged in the Western world. Increasingly, ever more refined ‘fast’ or ‘junk’ foods are being purchased and consumed; people are eating less food prepared in the home (Dixon et al., 2006, p.635). Total sugar additive consumption has gone up significantly since 1985 (Pollan, 2006, p.104), Americans now drink twice the amount of soda that they do water (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). In recent years fast-food restaurants have also encouraged customers to ‘super-size’ their meals, delivering even greater quantities of unnecessary fats, salts and sugars (Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.171). Leahy (1999, pp.52-76) argues that whereas once the individual’s sense of purpose and meaning was derived from the work they did, now to survive in Western societies such individuals must work at some remove from their product and as a result must derive that sense of fulfilment from the items they consume. Consumers in industrialised nations are thus ‘alienated workers’ who purchase luxuries as compensation or reward for work they derive little satisfaction from, sparing little thought for the consequences of their purchasing decisions.
Importantly, this trend towards consuming junk foods is not evenly distributed throughout Western populations but rather reflects the growing divisions in the West between rich and poor. People in lower-income socio-economic brackets and ethnic minorities are more likely to subsist on convenience foods and fast foods in particular as these are simply more affordable (Gittelsohn & Sharma, 2009, p.161; Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.162). It is also an issue of accessibility. Car ownership is not so prevalent in lower income brackets, making transportation of large quantities of foodstuffs from supermarkets difficult. Minority ethnic communities around the world have sometimes been ghettoized within cities or placed on reserves and consequently are often at some physical distance from food retailers that offer varied, healthful food alternatives (Gittelsohn & Sharma, 2009, p.164, McLennan et al., 2004, p.176). In sum, our purchasing decisions reflect our positioning within society. These purchasing decisions have social and environmental consequences, however, and it is to these that we now turn our attention.
Of the social consequences of Western patterns of consumption, let us first consider the global inequalities they create and sustain. Leahy (1999, pp.52-76) argues that to compete within an increasingly global market economy, the global capitalist class, those very few who own the means of production and are among the wealthiest persons in the developed nations, must base the production and supply of commodities such as food from places where labour and resources are cheapest, which is most commonly the developing world. In order to survive, the global poor, located mostly in those developing nations, must damage local ecological systems to make room for the production of cash crops or luxuries that the developed nations cannot provide themselves due to industrialisation and urbanisation.
Leahy (1999, pp.52-76). argues that because traditional, sustainable agricultural practices such as polyculture and companion planting are costly in terms of labour and time, they are increasingly giving way to unsustainable and ecologically damaging practices such as overgrazing, monoculture, and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides as producers strive to be competitive. Leahy further describes the environmental and socio-economic impacts of outsourcing developed nations’ food supply, noting in particular the transition in developing nations from individuals producing sufficient food for local consumption to the production of largely luxury consumables for international trade, at the expense of local prosperity. The world’s poor have less protein to survive on, as fish stocks are being diverted to provide non-food commodities for the world’s rich, particularly animal food and oils and cosmetics (Sarin, 2003, pp.88-89).
Let us also consider the social consequences of Western patterns of consumption that are observable closer to home, beginning with the health of the individuals within Western societies. There are alarming obesity trends in the affluent western world, as many as 60% of adults in Australia are obese; this is of great concern because obesity is correlated with a number of chronic and debilitating conditions, including adult-onset diabetes, cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal problems and cancer (Dixon et al., 2006, p.634). Other health risks associated with obesity include high cholesterol, high blood pressure and asthma (Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.162) as well as sleep apnoea, incontinence, and more seriously a shortened lifespan and even dementia (Anand & Gray, 2009, pp.182-183).
High soda consumption, particularly, is largely responsible for childhood and adult obesity and adult-onset diabetes (Herro, 2007). The substitution of soda for milk and other healthy alternatives contributes to the prevalence of obesity in a population and causes dietary deficiencies; particularly of calcium, causing osteoporosis and tooth decay, especially as soda is generally consumed between meals and so leaves residues in the mouth for longer (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). There are also distressing psychological effects of obesity for those affected (Dixon et al., 2006, p.634). In fact, the increasing prevalence of a number of psychological disorders and mental health problems, including depression and ADHD, can be attributed to poor nutrition, while other disorders that are more or less evenly distributed worldwide, such as schizophrenia, are aggravated by diets high in fats and sugars (Thomas, 2006, p.4).
Dixon et al. (2006, pp.634-645) describe what they term the ‘obesogenic environment;’ this being “the surroundings, opportunities and conditions of life [which] promote obesity in individuals and populations.” They identify the ready availability of convenience foods as a significant factor in these trends, combined with the high energy-density of such foods and beverages and the aggressive and pervasive marketing of these products. Other factors include the normalisation of individual consumption in isolation and the reduction of traditional communal consumption, the use of food as a psychological balm for loneliness, depression and low self-esteem, and the institution of ‘round-the-clock’ grazing patterns in place of regular meal times. Consumption, the authors note, has become “disembedded” from social conventions, becoming dictated by market forces rather than community norms.
Furthermore, the reliance on convenience food results in people losing the capacity to plan and prepare their own meals, losing their understanding of the nutritional properties of the foods eaten, and losing control over serving sizes. As we have already noted, it is primarily the less affluent in Western societies who are most likely to rely on junk foods for their subsistence, given the cost-effectiveness of doing so in an increasingly globalised, technologically-driven and poverty-creating society. The poor are therefore at most risk of the ill-health effects of such subsistence.
The biggest risk associated with convenience food culture, however, affects both rich and poor alike. 200 million tons of synthetic plastics are produced annually, and 12 million tons goes into packaging for foodstuffs (Rhim & Ng, 2007, p.411). Petrochemical-based food packaging materials do not degrade easily in the environment and constitute a significant risk to human health, animal life and the environment (Odunze et al., 2008, pp.114-117). Convenience food culture encourages the manufacture of packaging products that persist for many hundreds of years, bleeding toxic chemicals into soils and waterways, choking natural habitats and posing a significant risk to wildlife. Supermarkets are largely responsible for the excessive distribution of plastic shopping bags, while junk foods and sodas are excessively packaged and their disposal is equally problematic (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). The packaging of convenience foods often cannot be broken down easily and is left to accumulate in landfill. Much of it is merely discarded without thought and ends up in the environment, killing fish and animals.
To illustrate; marine debris, being any processed or manufactured product that enters the world’s oceans and waterways, is one of the biggest environmental problems yet to be properly addressed, and a significant percentage of such debris is comprised of food, beverage and tobacco packaging (Sheavly & Register, 2007, pp.301-302, 304). Humans have been using the ocean as a dumping ground for centuries (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.301), which perhaps did not constitute a significant problem when the human population was smaller and when such litter was overwhelmingly organic and biodegradable. But the nature of this waste has changed as humans have come to rely increasingly on synthetic materials, particularly in food packaging, resulting in solid waste that may persists in the environment for hundreds or even thousands of years. Non-biodegradable, convenience food items such as plastic soda bottles, cling film and polystyrene containers are now common features of many rivers, lakes and estuaries. When discarded into the ocean, these items can travel great distances on currents, being by their very nature buoyant and hardy, thus posing risks to far greater numbers of marine life and ecosystems than those in the locale of their initial disposal (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.301). Although much of this debris floats, it affects wildlife and ecosystems below the surface as well (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). Entanglement poses major risks for marine wildlife. Sheavly and Register (2007, pp.302-303) describe some of these risks: marine organisms may be strangled or drowned by human waste materials, or their mobility may become impaired by an injury incurred through contact with such materials, meaning that they cannot pursue prey or escape from predators. Debris may become caught in their mouths, meaning that they are unable to eat and so starve to death.
Ingestion is another significant concern; a number of human waste items may resemble prey species for marine organisms. Sheavly and Register (2007, p.303) make particular note of plastic shopping bags, which are sometimes mistaken for jellyfish by turtles and which then become lodged in the turtles’ digestive tracts causing death. In addition to posing dangers to individual organisms, marine debris threatens entire ecosystems. Where floating marine debris accumulates, it can cause serious ecological disruption by reducing the sunlight that penetrates the water and thus impacting the local food chain; furthermore, floating marine debris can be a means of transport for species across oceans, resulting in new species being introduced to habitats which may then decimate local populations (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.303).
Sheavly and Register (2007, p.302) stress that approximately eighty percent of all marine debris was discarded not in the oceans, but on land; food wrappings and other waste materials that are poorly disposed of eventually find their way into rivers and streams by means of sewers and storm-drains or are transported there by wind and rain, and once again we find that dense urban populations are the worst offenders (Sheavly& Register, 2007, p.302). Public littering is a major contributor to land-based marine debris, and much of this is plastic food wrapping, a significant portion of this waste is therefore a direct result of the prevailing convenience food culture (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). Little research has been done on the eventual fate of synthetic micro-fibres that enter marine ecosystems or on the effects on aquatic habitats and ecosystems of the accumulation and dispersion of toxins found in plastics (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.303), and yet as findings on their impact on human health illustrate, it is unlikely that the effects are benign.
Human health is affected by marine debris, there is evidence that contact with water contaminated by discarded packaging items often leads to outbreaks of illnesses such as cholera, typhoid, hepatitis, diarrhoea and dysentery (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). More insidious still, the toxic chemicals and synthetic micro-fibres in such items find their way into the marine food chain, and are eventually ingested by humans through fisheries. There is some evidence that coming into contact with these petrochemicals has negative effects on human health. Once in the human body, these synthetic particles and toxic chemicals damage the internal organs, resulting in poor health. It is also plausible that certain congenital birth defects may be attributable to parental exposure to petrochemicals. For example, phthalate esters found in much plastic packaging have been demonstrated to be harmful to the reproductive system of the human male, deforming the reproductive tract in developing males and inhibiting testosterone production (Benson, 2009).
As with marine wildlife, so with humans; the effects of environmental pollution affect not just individuals, but entire communities. In addition to its detrimental effect on ecosystems, marine debris also has aesthetic and economic impacts, as many coastal communities depend on tourism for income (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). The example of marine debris serves to illustrate that the adverse environmental and social consequences of convenience food culture are interlinked, consumer choices have environmental costs. It is hardly unreasonable to suppose that understandings of such environmental and human interdependence apply in most if not all other contexts. And yet it seems that our consumer lifestyles and reliance on convenient food are deeply entrenched, perhaps too deeply to amend? Certainly Leahy (1999, pp.52-76) would seem to suggest that the consumption of food for comfort and entertainment is an inevitable aspect of an alienating economic system.
Rhim (2007, pp.691-709) notes, however, that the negative environmental effects of non-biodegradable petrochemical-based plastic packaging materials and consumer's increasing demand for high quality food products have not gone unnoticed, and that biodegradable, renewable alternatives are being sought. Rhim notes that such efforts have been faced with “major limitations” however, in that the natural polymer-based packaging materials that have been developed as an alternative have “inherent shortcomings,” such as comparatively poor durability, resilience and water resistance. Simply put, they fail to protect and preserve foodstuffs to the standard expected by consumers. Advances are being made, however; industrial interest in the use of natural biopolymers in food packaging has been somewhat rekindled by the recent development of nanocomposite technologies. Rhim (2007, pp.691-709) notes that natural biopolymer-layered silicate nanocomposites go some way to eliminating the aforementioned packaging limitations, exhibiting increased mechanical strength, decreased gas permeability, and increased water resistance. These biodegradable alternatives to conventional plastic packaging materials may go some way to eliminating the deleterious effects of the accumulation of toxic packaging materials in delicate ecosystems.
What then is to be done? Some favour a legislative approach; one proposed solution to the problem of consumers making poor choices is increased taxation of junk food and soda producers, and the funnelling of the revenue from these taxes into countering the advertising of their products, or to ban them from advertising their products (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). Anand and Gray (2009, pp.186-189) call for the creation of a deliberative economy, in which expert knowledge undergirds government intervention in providing an optimal range of choices for consumers. Others, recognising the poor quality of fresh foods that have been transported internationally and the global inequalities that such economic activity perpetuates, now advocate buying only local and organic produce, correctly surmising that ethical purchasing can help reduce the environmental impact of current patterns of food production. Yet all these approaches fail to address the underlying inequalities that shape consumer choices, the fact remains that healthier, organic foods tend to be more expensive and are thus out of the reach of those who rely most on convenient food, the urban poor.
Solutions are also proposed for the remedying of specific aspects of the issue, such as the influx of packaging wastes into the environment and the poor nutritional quality and ill-health effects of convenience foods, but these also fail in that they do not address more fundamental causative patterns of behaviour. To illustrate, for the reduction of marine debris, Sheavly and Register (2007, pp.304-305) advocate greater education of consumers as to the long-term effects of littering, noting that each piece of litter represents one individual’s poor waste-disposal decision, and thus “In a way, it can be said that every piece of debris has human fingerprints on it”. But is this enough? Would it not rather be preferable to challenge consumers’ harmful convenience-food lifestyles? Dixon et al. (2006) describe the increasing trend towards functional, pharmaceutically altered foods, or ‘phoods’ in reaction to the increasing recognition of the poor health and nutritional qualities of convenience foods, but are sceptical of its effectiveness because nothing is being done to challenge society’s overwhelming reliance on convenience foods.
A growing number of individuals now advocate the creation of alternative economies and a reliance on community gardens and ‘freeganism’ or ‘dumpster-diving,’ the eating of expired but good quality food that is discarded daily by supermarkets. Such ‘radical’ measures may succeed in challenging the assumptions that many in Western societies have about food quality, and are to be applauded. Certainly in urban environments there may be few other alternatives to convenience food culture. Significant and lasting change is only likely to come about, however, through widespread changes to individual eating habits, through individuals, families and communities growing as much of their own food as possible and coming to understand and appreciate their own dependence upon their environment. Goldberg & Gunasti (2007, p.163) note that the taking of communal and family meals together promotes healthier attitudes towards food, and indeed the near-complete loss of theses practices over the past fifty years has undoubtedly contributed greatly to the maladaptive individual eating habits described above, and to the decline of socially and environmentally healthy families and communities. We must reverse the trend noted by Dixon et al. (2006, pp.634-645) and reconnect the act of eating with social conventions and interactions, and in so doing we may regain greater quality of life and preserve the environment on which we depend for our very existence.
To conclude, as illustrated by the example of marine debris, the health of human individuals and communities is affected by the health of the environment in which it is embedded; human beings do not exist in isolation from the natural world, and thus to remedy man-made environmental problems we must address their underlying social causes. This essay has demonstrated that prevailing Western patterns of convenience food consumption, divorced as they are from both production cycles and from social context, are a significant causative factor in the erosion of both human health and natural environments. Greater awareness and appreciation is needed of the interconnectedness of human life and the natural world, and of the value of social integration.
References
Anand, P. & Gray, A. (2009). Obesity as market failure: Could a ‘deliberative economy’ overcome the problems of paternalism? KYKLOS, 62(2), 182–190.
Assadorian, E. (2002). Soda consumption grows. Vital Signs 2002, pp. 140-141. Worldwatch.
Benson, R. (2009). Hazard to the developing male reproductive system from cumulative exposure to phthalate esters – dibutyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate, butylbenzyl phthalate, diethylhexyl phthalate, dipentyl phthalate, and diisononyl phthalate. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 53, 90-101.
Dixon, J. M., Hinde, S. J. & Banwell, C. L. (2006). Obesity, convenience and “phood.” British Food Journal, 108(8), pp. 634-645.
Gittelsohn, J. & Sharma, S. (2009). Physical, consumer, and social aspects of measuring the food environment among diverse low-income populations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009, 36(4S), pp.161-165.
Goldberg, M. E. & Gunasti, K. (2007). Creating an environment in which youths are encouraged to eat a healthier diet. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 162-181.
Gvozdenovic, J., Lazic, V. & Curakovic, M. (1997). New trends in fresh vegetable packing. First Balkan symposium on vegetables and potatoes, Vols. I & II, 1(462), 29-536.
Herro, A. (2007). Can “Dumping Soda” mitigate global obesity trends? Worldwatch Institute. Retrieved 25th May 2009 from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5492
Labrum, B. (2000). Persistent needs and expanding desires: Pakeha families and
state welfare in the years of prosperity. In B. Dalley and B. Labrum (Eds.). Fragments: New Zealand social and cultural history (pp.188-210). Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Leahy, T. (1999). Food and the environment. In J. Germov & L. Williams (Eds.), A sociology of food and nutrition: The social appetite, (pp.52-76). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Family Life. Exploring Society:
Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd Ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand, pp. 77-95.
Odunze, I. I., Mohammed, A. Z., Ike, E., Onuigbo, P.E. & Shuaibu-Imodagbe, E.M. (2008). Packaged foods, consumption pattern and impact on the environment in Zaria, Nigeria. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 6(3-4), 114-117.
Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: The Penguin Press.
Rhim, J. (2007). Potential use of biopolymer-based nanocomposite films in food
packaging applications. Food science and biotechnology, 16(5), 691-709.
Rhim, J. & Ng, P. K. W. (2007). Natural biopolymer-based nanocomposite films for packaging applications. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 47(4), 411-433.
Sarin, R. (2003). Rich-poor divide growing. Vital Signs 2003, pp.88-89. Retrieved 23rd May 2009 from www.worldwatch.org/brain/media/pdf/pubs/vs/2003_rich-poor.pdf
Scarpello, T., Poland, F., Lambert, N. & Wakeman, T. (2009). A qualitative study
of the food-related experiences of rural village shop customers. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 22, 108–115.
Sheavly, S. B. & Register, K. M. (2007). Marine Debris & Plastics: Environmental
Concerns, Sources, Impacts and Solutions. J Polym Environ, 15, 301–305.
Thomas, P. (2006). Feeding minds. The Ecologist 6(2), p.28. Retrieved 24th May 2009 from http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=587
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
The following will focus on the social and environmental consequences of global food production and consumption trends, arguing that widespread reliance on convenience food, both for preparation within the home and for personal consumption away from home, has dire social and environmental consequences, including environmental degradation, loss of community, pervasive poor health from excessive consumption in developed nations and, perversely, widespread malnourishment and disease in developing nations. The essay first describes the historical shift from household self-sufficiency to supermarket shopping, the consumption of convenience foods and comfort-eating, outlining the consequences of this shift for individual health and the environment and noting that the social and environmental effects are often intertwined. We argue that the root of the problem is essentially social, and conclude that in order to rectify the environmental problem it is in fact necessary to address the social concerns.
‘Convenience food’ may be defined as “the domestic outsourcing of food planning, preparation and/or cooking” (Dixon et al., 2006, p.635). People in developed nations are growing and preparing their own food less frequently because packaged foods are seen to be more convenient (Thomas, 2006, p.4). Convenience foods are marketed as a way to overcome time shortages (Dixon et al., 2006, p.638). Americans spend almost half of their food dollars on meals outside the home (Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.172). We can make a distinction between the convenient food that is purchased for preparation in the home and that which is purchased for consumption outside the home. The former involves foods that are packaged for easy storage, preparation and consumption, whether the food item requires heating or cooking or not. The latter represents a broader category, including food that is purchased at restaurants, bakeries and cafes, but also individually wrapped single portions that may be purchased from ‘fast food’ establishments, small convenience outlets and grocery stores. Common to both categories, however, is the problem of the disposal of packaging materials after consumption. These materials vary from recyclable tins, glass jars and cardboard boxes and to more heavily processed packaging that meshes foil, paper and wax or plastic.
There has been a historical shift from people growing their own food and selling their surplus to a relatively smaller number of people producing and preparing foods to sell on the market, which has in turn led to expansion of the availability of convenience foods in the 20th Century, in restaurants, service stations, vending machines, cafes and more, but especially in fast-food restaurants (Dixon et al., 2006, p.637). This historical shift is described by Dixon et al. (2006, pp.634-645), who note that although conventional wisdom places its origins in European cities in the Middle-Ages with street vendors and continues that the trend became more deeply entrenched as the industrial revolution drew ever-greater numbers of people into the cities in pursuit of work, in fact there is a rich tradition of convenience foods the world over. Nevertheless, the shift has been observed within Western nations, and the ascendancy of the West has brought about a new and pervasive convenience food culture. The transition to this convenience food culture has been motivated largely by the time constraints imposed upon individuals by shifts in the nature of paid work, and by time and space limitations brought about by changes in housing due to increasing urbanisation and the trend toward fewer people owning their own properties.
The nature of work has gradually changed over the course of the 20th Century, largely as a result of globalisation and technological innovation. This had the effect of relocating the working class into positions within the ‘service sector,’ positions which are largely part-time or casual, increasing the hardship faced by the majority of workers, creating redundancies and increasing the demand for welfare assistance (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.296-297). More and more families needed a dual income to cope with expenses, and so increasingly women entered the job market (Labrum, 2000, pp.190-191). Women’s increased participation in the workforce has contributed to the increased popularity of convenience foods and the reliance on supermarkets; the weakening of the gendered division of labour in the home has meant that people have less time to grow and prepare their own food (Dixon et al., 2006, p.638). Supermarkets are ‘convenient’ because of the wide range of products available, easy parking, long opening hours and their ability to undercut competitors in prices (Scarpello et al., 2009, p.112).
Similarly, increasing urbanisation since the industrial revolution and suburbanisation since World War II with the accompanying problems of motorway gridlock, air and water pollution, and cramped living conditions has meant that people have less time and space with which to tend their own crops on which to subsist (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.40, 175-176). Even in rural settings, however, people obtain the bulk of their food from supermarkets (Scarpello et al., 2009, p.111), indicating that the expectations we have of the food we purchase have increased. The affluent in the Western world have come to expect convenience, taste, variety and the highest quality fresh foods, available all year round. These expectations have led to the transportation of foodstuffs across vast distances, often around the globe, and this combined with the increased awareness of food contamination in the 20th Century has led to an increase in food packaging.
Food that is transported great distances needs to be packaged to minimise nutrient loss and spoiling. Fresh foods that people buy in supermarkets are often nutritionally inferior, they have been transported great distances and are not at their best when purchased; they are also less nutritious than they once were because the way that we farm reduces genetic diversity, relies on pesticides and strips the land of its nutrients (Thomas, 2006, p.4). Packaging of foodstuffs has therefore assumed an added importance; Gvozdenovic et al. (1997, pp.529-536) note that appropriate packing prolongs a foodstuff’s shelf-life and ensures a high-quality product. They describe the optimum packaging for the transportation and long-term storage of foodstuffs as the collective or individual wrapping food items in inert atmosphere or a specially concocted mixture of gasses, sealed with the most appropriate combination of packaging materials for the particular foodstuff. The intention is to create a barrier between the food item and any contamination in the external world, but also to limit the movement of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen molecules to and from the product and thereby reduce spoiling. The barrier is almost invariably achieved through the employment of PET/PE plastics or multilayer high-barrier cling-foil, the latter being the most convenient for the preservation of foodstuffs.
Odunze et al. (2008, pp.114-117) note that convenient or packaged foods have a number of benefits for consumers, they save time, are easy to store, reduce food wastage and make the task of food preparation easier. The authors note that the pre-packaged, pre-priced goods available in supermarkets somewhat compensate for the reduced time that is available to women for queuing in stores and cooking breakfast meals as a result of increasing urbanisation. Using a surveys and interviews, the authors find that consumers prefer plastic food packaging to metal, glass or paper, particularly because of the ease of opening the packaging and the readability of nutritional information on such packaging.
The way we relate to food in the Western world has fundamentally changed. Food is quicker and easier to prepare than ever before, and as a result people are eating more frequently (Anand & Gray, 2009, p.183), eating larger servings (Dixon et al., 2006, p.635), and choosing “nutritionally inferior convenience foods” high in additives, salts, fats and sugars (Thomas, 2006, p.4). Alongside the growth of supermarkets and other providers of convenient foods for preparation in the home, another trend has emerged in the Western world. Increasingly, ever more refined ‘fast’ or ‘junk’ foods are being purchased and consumed; people are eating less food prepared in the home (Dixon et al., 2006, p.635). Total sugar additive consumption has gone up significantly since 1985 (Pollan, 2006, p.104), Americans now drink twice the amount of soda that they do water (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). In recent years fast-food restaurants have also encouraged customers to ‘super-size’ their meals, delivering even greater quantities of unnecessary fats, salts and sugars (Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.171). Leahy (1999, pp.52-76) argues that whereas once the individual’s sense of purpose and meaning was derived from the work they did, now to survive in Western societies such individuals must work at some remove from their product and as a result must derive that sense of fulfilment from the items they consume. Consumers in industrialised nations are thus ‘alienated workers’ who purchase luxuries as compensation or reward for work they derive little satisfaction from, sparing little thought for the consequences of their purchasing decisions.
Importantly, this trend towards consuming junk foods is not evenly distributed throughout Western populations but rather reflects the growing divisions in the West between rich and poor. People in lower-income socio-economic brackets and ethnic minorities are more likely to subsist on convenience foods and fast foods in particular as these are simply more affordable (Gittelsohn & Sharma, 2009, p.161; Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.162). It is also an issue of accessibility. Car ownership is not so prevalent in lower income brackets, making transportation of large quantities of foodstuffs from supermarkets difficult. Minority ethnic communities around the world have sometimes been ghettoized within cities or placed on reserves and consequently are often at some physical distance from food retailers that offer varied, healthful food alternatives (Gittelsohn & Sharma, 2009, p.164, McLennan et al., 2004, p.176). In sum, our purchasing decisions reflect our positioning within society. These purchasing decisions have social and environmental consequences, however, and it is to these that we now turn our attention.
Of the social consequences of Western patterns of consumption, let us first consider the global inequalities they create and sustain. Leahy (1999, pp.52-76) argues that to compete within an increasingly global market economy, the global capitalist class, those very few who own the means of production and are among the wealthiest persons in the developed nations, must base the production and supply of commodities such as food from places where labour and resources are cheapest, which is most commonly the developing world. In order to survive, the global poor, located mostly in those developing nations, must damage local ecological systems to make room for the production of cash crops or luxuries that the developed nations cannot provide themselves due to industrialisation and urbanisation.
Leahy (1999, pp.52-76). argues that because traditional, sustainable agricultural practices such as polyculture and companion planting are costly in terms of labour and time, they are increasingly giving way to unsustainable and ecologically damaging practices such as overgrazing, monoculture, and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides as producers strive to be competitive. Leahy further describes the environmental and socio-economic impacts of outsourcing developed nations’ food supply, noting in particular the transition in developing nations from individuals producing sufficient food for local consumption to the production of largely luxury consumables for international trade, at the expense of local prosperity. The world’s poor have less protein to survive on, as fish stocks are being diverted to provide non-food commodities for the world’s rich, particularly animal food and oils and cosmetics (Sarin, 2003, pp.88-89).
Let us also consider the social consequences of Western patterns of consumption that are observable closer to home, beginning with the health of the individuals within Western societies. There are alarming obesity trends in the affluent western world, as many as 60% of adults in Australia are obese; this is of great concern because obesity is correlated with a number of chronic and debilitating conditions, including adult-onset diabetes, cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal problems and cancer (Dixon et al., 2006, p.634). Other health risks associated with obesity include high cholesterol, high blood pressure and asthma (Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.162) as well as sleep apnoea, incontinence, and more seriously a shortened lifespan and even dementia (Anand & Gray, 2009, pp.182-183).
High soda consumption, particularly, is largely responsible for childhood and adult obesity and adult-onset diabetes (Herro, 2007). The substitution of soda for milk and other healthy alternatives contributes to the prevalence of obesity in a population and causes dietary deficiencies; particularly of calcium, causing osteoporosis and tooth decay, especially as soda is generally consumed between meals and so leaves residues in the mouth for longer (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). There are also distressing psychological effects of obesity for those affected (Dixon et al., 2006, p.634). In fact, the increasing prevalence of a number of psychological disorders and mental health problems, including depression and ADHD, can be attributed to poor nutrition, while other disorders that are more or less evenly distributed worldwide, such as schizophrenia, are aggravated by diets high in fats and sugars (Thomas, 2006, p.4).
Dixon et al. (2006, pp.634-645) describe what they term the ‘obesogenic environment;’ this being “the surroundings, opportunities and conditions of life [which] promote obesity in individuals and populations.” They identify the ready availability of convenience foods as a significant factor in these trends, combined with the high energy-density of such foods and beverages and the aggressive and pervasive marketing of these products. Other factors include the normalisation of individual consumption in isolation and the reduction of traditional communal consumption, the use of food as a psychological balm for loneliness, depression and low self-esteem, and the institution of ‘round-the-clock’ grazing patterns in place of regular meal times. Consumption, the authors note, has become “disembedded” from social conventions, becoming dictated by market forces rather than community norms.
Furthermore, the reliance on convenience food results in people losing the capacity to plan and prepare their own meals, losing their understanding of the nutritional properties of the foods eaten, and losing control over serving sizes. As we have already noted, it is primarily the less affluent in Western societies who are most likely to rely on junk foods for their subsistence, given the cost-effectiveness of doing so in an increasingly globalised, technologically-driven and poverty-creating society. The poor are therefore at most risk of the ill-health effects of such subsistence.
The biggest risk associated with convenience food culture, however, affects both rich and poor alike. 200 million tons of synthetic plastics are produced annually, and 12 million tons goes into packaging for foodstuffs (Rhim & Ng, 2007, p.411). Petrochemical-based food packaging materials do not degrade easily in the environment and constitute a significant risk to human health, animal life and the environment (Odunze et al., 2008, pp.114-117). Convenience food culture encourages the manufacture of packaging products that persist for many hundreds of years, bleeding toxic chemicals into soils and waterways, choking natural habitats and posing a significant risk to wildlife. Supermarkets are largely responsible for the excessive distribution of plastic shopping bags, while junk foods and sodas are excessively packaged and their disposal is equally problematic (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). The packaging of convenience foods often cannot be broken down easily and is left to accumulate in landfill. Much of it is merely discarded without thought and ends up in the environment, killing fish and animals.
To illustrate; marine debris, being any processed or manufactured product that enters the world’s oceans and waterways, is one of the biggest environmental problems yet to be properly addressed, and a significant percentage of such debris is comprised of food, beverage and tobacco packaging (Sheavly & Register, 2007, pp.301-302, 304). Humans have been using the ocean as a dumping ground for centuries (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.301), which perhaps did not constitute a significant problem when the human population was smaller and when such litter was overwhelmingly organic and biodegradable. But the nature of this waste has changed as humans have come to rely increasingly on synthetic materials, particularly in food packaging, resulting in solid waste that may persists in the environment for hundreds or even thousands of years. Non-biodegradable, convenience food items such as plastic soda bottles, cling film and polystyrene containers are now common features of many rivers, lakes and estuaries. When discarded into the ocean, these items can travel great distances on currents, being by their very nature buoyant and hardy, thus posing risks to far greater numbers of marine life and ecosystems than those in the locale of their initial disposal (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.301). Although much of this debris floats, it affects wildlife and ecosystems below the surface as well (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). Entanglement poses major risks for marine wildlife. Sheavly and Register (2007, pp.302-303) describe some of these risks: marine organisms may be strangled or drowned by human waste materials, or their mobility may become impaired by an injury incurred through contact with such materials, meaning that they cannot pursue prey or escape from predators. Debris may become caught in their mouths, meaning that they are unable to eat and so starve to death.
Ingestion is another significant concern; a number of human waste items may resemble prey species for marine organisms. Sheavly and Register (2007, p.303) make particular note of plastic shopping bags, which are sometimes mistaken for jellyfish by turtles and which then become lodged in the turtles’ digestive tracts causing death. In addition to posing dangers to individual organisms, marine debris threatens entire ecosystems. Where floating marine debris accumulates, it can cause serious ecological disruption by reducing the sunlight that penetrates the water and thus impacting the local food chain; furthermore, floating marine debris can be a means of transport for species across oceans, resulting in new species being introduced to habitats which may then decimate local populations (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.303).
Sheavly and Register (2007, p.302) stress that approximately eighty percent of all marine debris was discarded not in the oceans, but on land; food wrappings and other waste materials that are poorly disposed of eventually find their way into rivers and streams by means of sewers and storm-drains or are transported there by wind and rain, and once again we find that dense urban populations are the worst offenders (Sheavly& Register, 2007, p.302). Public littering is a major contributor to land-based marine debris, and much of this is plastic food wrapping, a significant portion of this waste is therefore a direct result of the prevailing convenience food culture (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). Little research has been done on the eventual fate of synthetic micro-fibres that enter marine ecosystems or on the effects on aquatic habitats and ecosystems of the accumulation and dispersion of toxins found in plastics (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.303), and yet as findings on their impact on human health illustrate, it is unlikely that the effects are benign.
Human health is affected by marine debris, there is evidence that contact with water contaminated by discarded packaging items often leads to outbreaks of illnesses such as cholera, typhoid, hepatitis, diarrhoea and dysentery (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). More insidious still, the toxic chemicals and synthetic micro-fibres in such items find their way into the marine food chain, and are eventually ingested by humans through fisheries. There is some evidence that coming into contact with these petrochemicals has negative effects on human health. Once in the human body, these synthetic particles and toxic chemicals damage the internal organs, resulting in poor health. It is also plausible that certain congenital birth defects may be attributable to parental exposure to petrochemicals. For example, phthalate esters found in much plastic packaging have been demonstrated to be harmful to the reproductive system of the human male, deforming the reproductive tract in developing males and inhibiting testosterone production (Benson, 2009).
As with marine wildlife, so with humans; the effects of environmental pollution affect not just individuals, but entire communities. In addition to its detrimental effect on ecosystems, marine debris also has aesthetic and economic impacts, as many coastal communities depend on tourism for income (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). The example of marine debris serves to illustrate that the adverse environmental and social consequences of convenience food culture are interlinked, consumer choices have environmental costs. It is hardly unreasonable to suppose that understandings of such environmental and human interdependence apply in most if not all other contexts. And yet it seems that our consumer lifestyles and reliance on convenient food are deeply entrenched, perhaps too deeply to amend? Certainly Leahy (1999, pp.52-76) would seem to suggest that the consumption of food for comfort and entertainment is an inevitable aspect of an alienating economic system.
Rhim (2007, pp.691-709) notes, however, that the negative environmental effects of non-biodegradable petrochemical-based plastic packaging materials and consumer's increasing demand for high quality food products have not gone unnoticed, and that biodegradable, renewable alternatives are being sought. Rhim notes that such efforts have been faced with “major limitations” however, in that the natural polymer-based packaging materials that have been developed as an alternative have “inherent shortcomings,” such as comparatively poor durability, resilience and water resistance. Simply put, they fail to protect and preserve foodstuffs to the standard expected by consumers. Advances are being made, however; industrial interest in the use of natural biopolymers in food packaging has been somewhat rekindled by the recent development of nanocomposite technologies. Rhim (2007, pp.691-709) notes that natural biopolymer-layered silicate nanocomposites go some way to eliminating the aforementioned packaging limitations, exhibiting increased mechanical strength, decreased gas permeability, and increased water resistance. These biodegradable alternatives to conventional plastic packaging materials may go some way to eliminating the deleterious effects of the accumulation of toxic packaging materials in delicate ecosystems.
What then is to be done? Some favour a legislative approach; one proposed solution to the problem of consumers making poor choices is increased taxation of junk food and soda producers, and the funnelling of the revenue from these taxes into countering the advertising of their products, or to ban them from advertising their products (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). Anand and Gray (2009, pp.186-189) call for the creation of a deliberative economy, in which expert knowledge undergirds government intervention in providing an optimal range of choices for consumers. Others, recognising the poor quality of fresh foods that have been transported internationally and the global inequalities that such economic activity perpetuates, now advocate buying only local and organic produce, correctly surmising that ethical purchasing can help reduce the environmental impact of current patterns of food production. Yet all these approaches fail to address the underlying inequalities that shape consumer choices, the fact remains that healthier, organic foods tend to be more expensive and are thus out of the reach of those who rely most on convenient food, the urban poor.
Solutions are also proposed for the remedying of specific aspects of the issue, such as the influx of packaging wastes into the environment and the poor nutritional quality and ill-health effects of convenience foods, but these also fail in that they do not address more fundamental causative patterns of behaviour. To illustrate, for the reduction of marine debris, Sheavly and Register (2007, pp.304-305) advocate greater education of consumers as to the long-term effects of littering, noting that each piece of litter represents one individual’s poor waste-disposal decision, and thus “In a way, it can be said that every piece of debris has human fingerprints on it”. But is this enough? Would it not rather be preferable to challenge consumers’ harmful convenience-food lifestyles? Dixon et al. (2006) describe the increasing trend towards functional, pharmaceutically altered foods, or ‘phoods’ in reaction to the increasing recognition of the poor health and nutritional qualities of convenience foods, but are sceptical of its effectiveness because nothing is being done to challenge society’s overwhelming reliance on convenience foods.
A growing number of individuals now advocate the creation of alternative economies and a reliance on community gardens and ‘freeganism’ or ‘dumpster-diving,’ the eating of expired but good quality food that is discarded daily by supermarkets. Such ‘radical’ measures may succeed in challenging the assumptions that many in Western societies have about food quality, and are to be applauded. Certainly in urban environments there may be few other alternatives to convenience food culture. Significant and lasting change is only likely to come about, however, through widespread changes to individual eating habits, through individuals, families and communities growing as much of their own food as possible and coming to understand and appreciate their own dependence upon their environment. Goldberg & Gunasti (2007, p.163) note that the taking of communal and family meals together promotes healthier attitudes towards food, and indeed the near-complete loss of theses practices over the past fifty years has undoubtedly contributed greatly to the maladaptive individual eating habits described above, and to the decline of socially and environmentally healthy families and communities. We must reverse the trend noted by Dixon et al. (2006, pp.634-645) and reconnect the act of eating with social conventions and interactions, and in so doing we may regain greater quality of life and preserve the environment on which we depend for our very existence.
To conclude, as illustrated by the example of marine debris, the health of human individuals and communities is affected by the health of the environment in which it is embedded; human beings do not exist in isolation from the natural world, and thus to remedy man-made environmental problems we must address their underlying social causes. This essay has demonstrated that prevailing Western patterns of convenience food consumption, divorced as they are from both production cycles and from social context, are a significant causative factor in the erosion of both human health and natural environments. Greater awareness and appreciation is needed of the interconnectedness of human life and the natural world, and of the value of social integration.
References
Anand, P. & Gray, A. (2009). Obesity as market failure: Could a ‘deliberative economy’ overcome the problems of paternalism? KYKLOS, 62(2), 182–190.
Assadorian, E. (2002). Soda consumption grows. Vital Signs 2002, pp. 140-141. Worldwatch.
Benson, R. (2009). Hazard to the developing male reproductive system from cumulative exposure to phthalate esters – dibutyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate, butylbenzyl phthalate, diethylhexyl phthalate, dipentyl phthalate, and diisononyl phthalate. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 53, 90-101.
Dixon, J. M., Hinde, S. J. & Banwell, C. L. (2006). Obesity, convenience and “phood.” British Food Journal, 108(8), pp. 634-645.
Gittelsohn, J. & Sharma, S. (2009). Physical, consumer, and social aspects of measuring the food environment among diverse low-income populations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009, 36(4S), pp.161-165.
Goldberg, M. E. & Gunasti, K. (2007). Creating an environment in which youths are encouraged to eat a healthier diet. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 162-181.
Gvozdenovic, J., Lazic, V. & Curakovic, M. (1997). New trends in fresh vegetable packing. First Balkan symposium on vegetables and potatoes, Vols. I & II, 1(462), 29-536.
Herro, A. (2007). Can “Dumping Soda” mitigate global obesity trends? Worldwatch Institute. Retrieved 25th May 2009 from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5492
Labrum, B. (2000). Persistent needs and expanding desires: Pakeha families and
state welfare in the years of prosperity. In B. Dalley and B. Labrum (Eds.). Fragments: New Zealand social and cultural history (pp.188-210). Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Leahy, T. (1999). Food and the environment. In J. Germov & L. Williams (Eds.), A sociology of food and nutrition: The social appetite, (pp.52-76). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Family Life. Exploring Society:
Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd Ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand, pp. 77-95.
Odunze, I. I., Mohammed, A. Z., Ike, E., Onuigbo, P.E. & Shuaibu-Imodagbe, E.M. (2008). Packaged foods, consumption pattern and impact on the environment in Zaria, Nigeria. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 6(3-4), 114-117.
Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: The Penguin Press.
Rhim, J. (2007). Potential use of biopolymer-based nanocomposite films in food
packaging applications. Food science and biotechnology, 16(5), 691-709.
Rhim, J. & Ng, P. K. W. (2007). Natural biopolymer-based nanocomposite films for packaging applications. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 47(4), 411-433.
Sarin, R. (2003). Rich-poor divide growing. Vital Signs 2003, pp.88-89. Retrieved 23rd May 2009 from www.worldwatch.org/brain/media/pdf/pubs/vs/2003_rich-poor.pdf
Scarpello, T., Poland, F., Lambert, N. & Wakeman, T. (2009). A qualitative study
of the food-related experiences of rural village shop customers. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 22, 108–115.
Sheavly, S. B. & Register, K. M. (2007). Marine Debris & Plastics: Environmental
Concerns, Sources, Impacts and Solutions. J Polym Environ, 15, 301–305.
Thomas, P. (2006). Feeding minds. The Ecologist 6(2), p.28. Retrieved 24th May 2009 from http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=587
Thursday, May 22, 2008
On Love, And Other calamities (Part One)
The feelings we experience through different stages of love are due to chemicals that we produce within our bodies, hormones that wash over our brains, compelling us to act in ways that are mistaken for fate or folly. Ask any old married couple, and they'll tell you that the excitement of initial infatuation becomes deeper attachment with the passage of time, but inevitably the excitement fades to little more than memory.
There are three stages of what we call love: Lust, Romantic Love, and Attachment, each different, but all in the service of the biological imperative to successfully reproduce. Lust gets us hunting for potential mates, Romantic Love narrows our focus down to just one individual, and Attachment encourages us to stick with this partner long enough to raise children. Each of these stages is characterised by the presence of different levels of certain hormones in a person's circulatory system and neurochemistry.
Let's look at Lust first. We're all aware of this initial stage of love, that jolt of excitement and piqued curiosity when we are in close proximity to a person to whom we are mysteriously attracted. Lust would seem to be a primarily visual phenomenon, and certainly our cultural heritage deals with it in such a way. The words of Jesus were that "anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and further that "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" (Matthew 5:28-29), hence the Religious Right's almost fanatical vendetta against pornography and infidelity.
We now know that it's quite natural to 'keep an eye out' for potential mates, but increasingly scientists are discovering that Lust is fundamentally a chemical phenomenon.It has been found that women are more aromatically susceptible than men - that is, they have a better sense of smell - perhaps because they have evolved to regard smell as a significant indicator of a partner's suitability, being the one stuck with the most work in reproduction. Not only is a woman's sex cell, the gigantic egg or ovum, more biologically costly to produce than the man's millions of tiny sperm cells, she has to carry the developing embryo within her body, nourishing it at her own expense, and this duty does not cease when once the offspring is born, she then has to breastfeed, and gather foods for her infant for years afterward! The man, by contrast, has the option of disappearing after the act of copulation, no further expense incurred.
Smell is indicative of the state of an individual's immune system - we're programmed to seek partners with different immunity to our own so that our offspring will have the strongest immune system possible and thus a better chance of surviving. Heterosexual couples with similar immune systems have higher incidence of spontaneous miscarriage during pregnancy, and frequently have more trouble conceiving in the first place. Interestingly, the Contraceptive Pill confuses a woman's sense of smell to prefer a partner with a scent similar to her own. Consequently, perhaps, among the top complaints heard by divorce lawyers from women is "I can't stand his smell." But on the lighter side, once two people are emotionally attached they're disposed to see (and smell) each other in a more positive light.
Lust is also characterised by a surge of testosterone in both men and women. It is a common misconception that testosterone is the 'male hormone,' but this simply is not true. While it certainly is responsible for the development of male anatomy and secondary sex characteristics (body hair, deeper voice, sperm production) at specific points in the individual's life, it is by no means a chemical exclusive to men. Testosterone, it seems, arouses an individual, be they male or female, in readiness for copulation. Men have more interest in sex, (and in having sex more often, at that) because they have a set of glands that are devoted to full-time production of testosterone. A woman's sexual response is tempered by which stage she is at in her monthly menstrual cycle, as testosterone production waxes and wanes.
Romantic Love is the (far from inevitable) next step in the process, and is quite distinct, introducing the major chemical player in romance, a hormone known as dopamine. Dopamine and norepinephrine levels surge when a person is confronted by the unknown. These are the same chemicals responsible for addiction - and for experiencing elation, hope, despair and rage.In the initial stage of Romantic Love, they cause such exhilaration that we forget to eat or sleep. This is commonly referred to as 'lovesickness,' for indeed throughout history it has been regarded as a sort of madness or illness. It is only comparatively recently in Western societies, in the last two hundred years roughly, that being 'In Love' has come to be seen as a good foundation for marriage and the raising of children.
This wave of dopamine, however, eventually subsides, and is followed by vasopressin and oxytocin, hormones that lead to long-lasting Attachment. These are 'Cuddle Chemicals,' released during sex; they give us the 'warm fuzzies,' making us want to stick together. They condition both partners so that they will maintain a pair bond for the successful rearing of offspring. Oxytocin, in particular, may actually subdue levels of unruly dopamine and norepinephrine, taking away that 'high' of initial infatuation, effectively 'squashing' Romantic Love.
There is something about the way our society is structured - our Western 'rules of propriety' - handed down through Christian tradition and surviving today in secular form - that creates and bolsters the conditions to capitalise on the natural high which accompanies the initial dopamine and norepinephrine surge. We commonly believe that 'dating' is a sensible practice put in place so that we may 'shop around' to find a good match, but perhaps it serves a further purpose. The rules of propriety that accompany dating (no sex before marriage, no sex on a first date and so on) are a restriction or barrier when you have found that one 'special someone,' they serve to frustrate the natural impulse and prolong the 'romantic high,' until marriage and consummation, for it is well known that when it comes to romance, you always want what you cannot have.
This delay may in fact bring about an even more powerful wave of Cuddle Chemicals than would otherwise be the case, leading to even longer-lasting attachment. Gay and lesbian communities in the Western world largely lack such societally-imposed restrictions, and indeed consummation of the natural procreative impulse, though directed at a partner of the same gender and thus confounding its biological imperative, follows swiftly in these communities. It is perhaps unsurprising that gay and lesbian relationships generally do not last nearly as long as 'straight' partnerships, when the conditions for lifelong partnership are largely a product of rules designed to frustrate the urges of 'normal' heterosexual mating pairs.
The problem with the 'Cuddle Chemical' stage is that it too begins to wane with time, as sex becomes less frequent. Men in particular are naturally programmed to seek out new sexual partners, and will inevitably begin to look around, being none too choosy. And women, far from being the passive objects they have been made out to be in much of Western tradition, are actually programmed to be continuously on the lookout to 'trade up' and secure a partner with better genetics, more resources and greater dominance (hence the appeal of shopping and wealthy husbands). And thus even the most the most stable, affectionate couple is vulnerable to infidelity or dissolution in time.
Novelty makes your brain and body pump out the exciting hormones, norepinephrine and dopamine, so if you find attraction waning, if your partnership has lost it's excitement and you want to persevere, then do new and varied things and fall in love all over again. You can fool your brain into seeing your partner as a new one. Studies show that couples who share more exciting experiences (such as entering competitions together and travelling together on vacations to new places) report more happiness and satisfaction. This may in fact explain the success of arranged marriages in other cultures, for while we in the West do not generally like the idea, the anxiety, suspense, and the thrill of Chinese or Indian wedding pageantry may in fact drive dopamine levels up so high that romantic love positively flourishes.
We have other tools to bring on the dopamine. Humour is one of the best. And as if you needed an excuse, having sex elevates testosterone levels in both males and females, which in turn revs up the dopamine, allowing partners to recapture the thrill of romantic love, at least temporarily. The simplest way, however, is enforced separation or a good old screaming row. Arguments trigger a rush of adrenaline, which kicks in during risky, new situations. Separation prolongs the production of dopamine, you want the person more as the barriers to togetherness are increased, which increases the frustration and makes the reward of being together so much richer. The problem with this is that both partners have to be in-sync for what's comfortable or challenging, and not many of us are. Our drives for novelty can be unifying or divisive once the exhilaration of courtship gives way to the routines of partnership.
Most enduring couples, it is found, are seeking similar levels of stimulation. People who seek high levels of stimulation (high sensation seekers) are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, explore unknown territory, experiment with drugs and alcohol and seek out a variety or larger number of sexual partners. High sensation seekers have low levels of dopamine (oddly enough) and serotonin, probably because of low levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO), which regulates dopamine and other neurotransmitters. Low serotonin levels go hand in hand with impulsive behaviour. Men tend to have lower MAO levels than women, which is not to say that they are deficient, but rather that this characteristic serves the man's quite different biological reproductive agenda (more on sex differences between men and women later).
A couple made up of two high sensation seekers is more likely to dissolve out of boredom, and this is almost certainly a factor in the generally rapid dissolution of male-male couples. A couple where one partner is a high sensation seeker and the other is a low sensation seeker will not easily understand each other (the majority of couples fall into this category, this being largely the state of the heterosexual population). The happiest couples are comprised of two people who aren't looking for high excitement, but lest you hastily conclude that lesbian relationships must be more content than any other couple form, it must be noted that even within each biological sex there may be vast disparities in individuals' levels of sensation seeking. It's not always obvious in the beginning stages of a relationship what level your potential partner is.
So there we have it: a brief overview of the chemistry of love and sex. Just as an aside, it should perhaps be noted that the hormones that incite us to couplehood and attachment actually decrease our individual testosterone production, making sex progressively less interesting over time. Couples who maintain interesting and satisfying sexual relationships generally have a lot of fights, go through periods of separation and reunion, have rich fantasy lives or make allowances for infidelity or the possibility (even if unacted upon) of sex with others. But lest you come away from this brief essay gloomy or disillusioned, take comfort in the fact that there are plenty of other areas in a relationship that may deepen and become richer with time, and that long-term Attachment is something wonderful in and of itself.
It's not all about sex.
DannyR
There are three stages of what we call love: Lust, Romantic Love, and Attachment, each different, but all in the service of the biological imperative to successfully reproduce. Lust gets us hunting for potential mates, Romantic Love narrows our focus down to just one individual, and Attachment encourages us to stick with this partner long enough to raise children. Each of these stages is characterised by the presence of different levels of certain hormones in a person's circulatory system and neurochemistry.
Let's look at Lust first. We're all aware of this initial stage of love, that jolt of excitement and piqued curiosity when we are in close proximity to a person to whom we are mysteriously attracted. Lust would seem to be a primarily visual phenomenon, and certainly our cultural heritage deals with it in such a way. The words of Jesus were that "anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and further that "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" (Matthew 5:28-29), hence the Religious Right's almost fanatical vendetta against pornography and infidelity.
We now know that it's quite natural to 'keep an eye out' for potential mates, but increasingly scientists are discovering that Lust is fundamentally a chemical phenomenon.It has been found that women are more aromatically susceptible than men - that is, they have a better sense of smell - perhaps because they have evolved to regard smell as a significant indicator of a partner's suitability, being the one stuck with the most work in reproduction. Not only is a woman's sex cell, the gigantic egg or ovum, more biologically costly to produce than the man's millions of tiny sperm cells, she has to carry the developing embryo within her body, nourishing it at her own expense, and this duty does not cease when once the offspring is born, she then has to breastfeed, and gather foods for her infant for years afterward! The man, by contrast, has the option of disappearing after the act of copulation, no further expense incurred.
Smell is indicative of the state of an individual's immune system - we're programmed to seek partners with different immunity to our own so that our offspring will have the strongest immune system possible and thus a better chance of surviving. Heterosexual couples with similar immune systems have higher incidence of spontaneous miscarriage during pregnancy, and frequently have more trouble conceiving in the first place. Interestingly, the Contraceptive Pill confuses a woman's sense of smell to prefer a partner with a scent similar to her own. Consequently, perhaps, among the top complaints heard by divorce lawyers from women is "I can't stand his smell." But on the lighter side, once two people are emotionally attached they're disposed to see (and smell) each other in a more positive light.
Lust is also characterised by a surge of testosterone in both men and women. It is a common misconception that testosterone is the 'male hormone,' but this simply is not true. While it certainly is responsible for the development of male anatomy and secondary sex characteristics (body hair, deeper voice, sperm production) at specific points in the individual's life, it is by no means a chemical exclusive to men. Testosterone, it seems, arouses an individual, be they male or female, in readiness for copulation. Men have more interest in sex, (and in having sex more often, at that) because they have a set of glands that are devoted to full-time production of testosterone. A woman's sexual response is tempered by which stage she is at in her monthly menstrual cycle, as testosterone production waxes and wanes.
Romantic Love is the (far from inevitable) next step in the process, and is quite distinct, introducing the major chemical player in romance, a hormone known as dopamine. Dopamine and norepinephrine levels surge when a person is confronted by the unknown. These are the same chemicals responsible for addiction - and for experiencing elation, hope, despair and rage.In the initial stage of Romantic Love, they cause such exhilaration that we forget to eat or sleep. This is commonly referred to as 'lovesickness,' for indeed throughout history it has been regarded as a sort of madness or illness. It is only comparatively recently in Western societies, in the last two hundred years roughly, that being 'In Love' has come to be seen as a good foundation for marriage and the raising of children.
This wave of dopamine, however, eventually subsides, and is followed by vasopressin and oxytocin, hormones that lead to long-lasting Attachment. These are 'Cuddle Chemicals,' released during sex; they give us the 'warm fuzzies,' making us want to stick together. They condition both partners so that they will maintain a pair bond for the successful rearing of offspring. Oxytocin, in particular, may actually subdue levels of unruly dopamine and norepinephrine, taking away that 'high' of initial infatuation, effectively 'squashing' Romantic Love.
There is something about the way our society is structured - our Western 'rules of propriety' - handed down through Christian tradition and surviving today in secular form - that creates and bolsters the conditions to capitalise on the natural high which accompanies the initial dopamine and norepinephrine surge. We commonly believe that 'dating' is a sensible practice put in place so that we may 'shop around' to find a good match, but perhaps it serves a further purpose. The rules of propriety that accompany dating (no sex before marriage, no sex on a first date and so on) are a restriction or barrier when you have found that one 'special someone,' they serve to frustrate the natural impulse and prolong the 'romantic high,' until marriage and consummation, for it is well known that when it comes to romance, you always want what you cannot have.
This delay may in fact bring about an even more powerful wave of Cuddle Chemicals than would otherwise be the case, leading to even longer-lasting attachment. Gay and lesbian communities in the Western world largely lack such societally-imposed restrictions, and indeed consummation of the natural procreative impulse, though directed at a partner of the same gender and thus confounding its biological imperative, follows swiftly in these communities. It is perhaps unsurprising that gay and lesbian relationships generally do not last nearly as long as 'straight' partnerships, when the conditions for lifelong partnership are largely a product of rules designed to frustrate the urges of 'normal' heterosexual mating pairs.
The problem with the 'Cuddle Chemical' stage is that it too begins to wane with time, as sex becomes less frequent. Men in particular are naturally programmed to seek out new sexual partners, and will inevitably begin to look around, being none too choosy. And women, far from being the passive objects they have been made out to be in much of Western tradition, are actually programmed to be continuously on the lookout to 'trade up' and secure a partner with better genetics, more resources and greater dominance (hence the appeal of shopping and wealthy husbands). And thus even the most the most stable, affectionate couple is vulnerable to infidelity or dissolution in time.
Novelty makes your brain and body pump out the exciting hormones, norepinephrine and dopamine, so if you find attraction waning, if your partnership has lost it's excitement and you want to persevere, then do new and varied things and fall in love all over again. You can fool your brain into seeing your partner as a new one. Studies show that couples who share more exciting experiences (such as entering competitions together and travelling together on vacations to new places) report more happiness and satisfaction. This may in fact explain the success of arranged marriages in other cultures, for while we in the West do not generally like the idea, the anxiety, suspense, and the thrill of Chinese or Indian wedding pageantry may in fact drive dopamine levels up so high that romantic love positively flourishes.
We have other tools to bring on the dopamine. Humour is one of the best. And as if you needed an excuse, having sex elevates testosterone levels in both males and females, which in turn revs up the dopamine, allowing partners to recapture the thrill of romantic love, at least temporarily. The simplest way, however, is enforced separation or a good old screaming row. Arguments trigger a rush of adrenaline, which kicks in during risky, new situations. Separation prolongs the production of dopamine, you want the person more as the barriers to togetherness are increased, which increases the frustration and makes the reward of being together so much richer. The problem with this is that both partners have to be in-sync for what's comfortable or challenging, and not many of us are. Our drives for novelty can be unifying or divisive once the exhilaration of courtship gives way to the routines of partnership.
Most enduring couples, it is found, are seeking similar levels of stimulation. People who seek high levels of stimulation (high sensation seekers) are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, explore unknown territory, experiment with drugs and alcohol and seek out a variety or larger number of sexual partners. High sensation seekers have low levels of dopamine (oddly enough) and serotonin, probably because of low levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO), which regulates dopamine and other neurotransmitters. Low serotonin levels go hand in hand with impulsive behaviour. Men tend to have lower MAO levels than women, which is not to say that they are deficient, but rather that this characteristic serves the man's quite different biological reproductive agenda (more on sex differences between men and women later).
A couple made up of two high sensation seekers is more likely to dissolve out of boredom, and this is almost certainly a factor in the generally rapid dissolution of male-male couples. A couple where one partner is a high sensation seeker and the other is a low sensation seeker will not easily understand each other (the majority of couples fall into this category, this being largely the state of the heterosexual population). The happiest couples are comprised of two people who aren't looking for high excitement, but lest you hastily conclude that lesbian relationships must be more content than any other couple form, it must be noted that even within each biological sex there may be vast disparities in individuals' levels of sensation seeking. It's not always obvious in the beginning stages of a relationship what level your potential partner is.
So there we have it: a brief overview of the chemistry of love and sex. Just as an aside, it should perhaps be noted that the hormones that incite us to couplehood and attachment actually decrease our individual testosterone production, making sex progressively less interesting over time. Couples who maintain interesting and satisfying sexual relationships generally have a lot of fights, go through periods of separation and reunion, have rich fantasy lives or make allowances for infidelity or the possibility (even if unacted upon) of sex with others. But lest you come away from this brief essay gloomy or disillusioned, take comfort in the fact that there are plenty of other areas in a relationship that may deepen and become richer with time, and that long-term Attachment is something wonderful in and of itself.
It's not all about sex.
DannyR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Science vs Religion
Heart
I guess I just care too much...