Like the Oxbridge sex blogger, PMB lives at an Oxbridge college. Let's call that college "Ursa College," named for the Greek mythical figure Callisto, whom Hera turned into a bear out of jealousy, and Zeus cast into the sky as a constellation (along with her son, Arcas). Right. Ursa College.
Ursa college has voted to adopt a meat-free dinner policy on Fridays in the dining hall (meat is no longer served in hall on Friday evenings). The spirit of the policy is to make a small gesture toward carbon emissions reduction by abstaining in one meal per week from the consumption of meat. The policy also acknowledges that our current (global) rate of meat consumption is not sustainable in the long-term.
Because the policy has been met with vociferous opposition, boycotting of the dining hall, and general animosity, PMB will try to break things down for those still interested in the issue.
Currently, most of the discussion of and argument over meat-free Fridays is failing because discussants are unable to separate debates over the policy's intent from debates that arise from the policy as externalities. Consequently, while some are arguing about the importance of choice versus mandate or individual versus collective will in addressing environmental or consumption issues, others are having an entirely different argument over whether Ursa College provides adequate choices for vegans and vegetarians, and whether the backlash against the meat-free Friday policy is indicative of institutional marginalization (through extreme reactions, through limited meal choices) of persons with certain dietary restrictions. That the policy has prompted multiple arguments or discussions is not at all a problem; that these different arguments and discussions are going on over and across each other and often at the same time is a clarity problem, and produces distortion and communication breakdown.
PMB will start with the easier of the two questions, the question of whether Ursa College adequately meets the dietary needs of all of its members, and whether it ought to. Though the majority of Ursa members is omnivorous, a considerable minority is vegan or vegetarian. Ursa always serves at least one or two vegetarian options in hall (out of four to six total main course options), but has traditionally failed to serve vegan meals. Minorities of any sort don't inherently deserve extra or special attention, though it is often the case, in practice, that the dominance of the majority requires extra effort to ensure that minorities are treated democratically and their needs and interests are properly addressed. Mind you, democracy does not mean "majority rule," but "rule of the people." Minority people need to be accounted for, despite the marginalizing force of majority, in all manners of governance. Accordingly, as a democratically-minded academic institution, Ursa must be committed to doing what it can to meet the dietary needs of everyone at Ursa. In the near future it will be important for Ursa to continue in its quite successful tradition of being admirably fair, open, and responsive to the needs of its members, and in that vein to consider how to improve dining options for vegan and vegetarian members, regardless of the outcome of meat-free Fridays. As PMB understands, Ursa has already begun to think about possibilities for improvement, a testament to Ursa's culture of fair-mindedness, inclusion, and generosity.
Has the meat-free Fridays policy already begun to address the need for better options for vegan and vegetarian members? As PMB has noted, this was not the initial concern of the policy, though the policy has at least spurred some discussion about better vegan and vegetarian provisions. While the policy has not directly contributed much of practical value, and notably functions to restrict choice rather than to provide more choice, it has helped put the issue of vegan and vegetarian provisions on the radar.
As to the more difficult questions about the best ways for Ursa members to be environmentally conscious, PMB believes that Ursites would be better encouraged to make ethical choices about their consumption than forced to do so, even if for only one night of the week. One layer of this dispute is the old question about utilitarianism, whether ends justify means; a second layer is the consideration of, even given that ends justify means, whether the meat-free Fridays policy as a means actually best justifies its intended ends.
PMB is a harsh critic of utilitarian arguments and endeavors. First, the Best Possible Ends is something one can rarely quantify convincingly. Second, utilitarian arguments give short shrift to intentionality. Third, certain ends, even good ones, can be achieved through means that violate necessary and sustaining ethical principles.
1) If banning meat in hall on Fridays reduces carbon emissions and meat consumption in hall, but causes disaffected students to make a point of going out to restaurants to consume meat every Friday, how does one determine whether the best possible ends for the environment have been met?
2) If well-meaning omnivores intend to abstain from eating meat on Fridays, then find themselves robbed of that good-faith intentionality by being deprived of the choice of abstention by force or by mandate, haven't we discouraged the very kind of thinking that we aimed to instill?
3) If it's OK for omnivores to be deprived of choice in one instance each week with the aim of aiding the environment, does it not also ratify the tactic of choice deprivation used by other, less-savory groups to marginalize or to persecute their opposition? Should Ursa apply the same principles to its policymaking across the board, what would happen to our core values?
An ends-justify-means approach, whose instrument in this case is choice deprivation, fails because it undermines its own guiding sentiment of choosing to do the right thing by the environment. By effectively mandating a collective "choice," for what to eat in hall on Fridays, the meat-free Friday policy disempowers large groups of Ursites who would otherwise choose to forego meat meals on Fridays and other days in reverence to an ethical request, as it were, rather than a mandate. In most cases, right action happens through choice, and not through coercion.
In some cases, collective will must be imposed. For example, individuals will never decide of their own free will to charitably donate enough of their income to sustain a given society's poor or build that society's infrastructure. As a result we have taxes and government-based social provisions. The principle behind this is that a governing body is responsible foremost to the society (the people) who comprise it and give it legitimacy. Ursa operates in a similar way; the primary responsibility of its governing bodies are to its members and their needs. Abstracting global intentions beyond the needs of the locals must be done carefully, and not necessarily by mandate. In the case of Ursa, as PMB has suggested, many members will choose to concern themselves with global issues without being forced to do so. In many cases being forced to do so will counterintuitively turn the concerns of the globally minded back onto the local (as has happened at Ursa), creating the opposite orientation of the mandate's intent (here we find ourselves engaged in very localized politics of global concern).
Additionally and admittedly, moral and ethical action is less meaningful when it isn't chosen. In Theocratic Society X, for example, where stealing a piece of fruit gets you stoned to death, they have low crime rates. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that the citizens of Theocratic Society X are more moral than the citizens of societies with higher crime rates but less severe punishments. What does it mean, then, to chose to do what is right, versus being coerced into not doing what is wrong?
And, at the end of the day, it's at least questionable whether the means of limiting the choice of meat in hall on Fridays have optimally produced the desired ends. As PMB's comments have suggested thus far, the policy has largely engendered the opposite of its aims.
PMB's recommendation: encourage meat-free Fridays in hall, but allow the choice of meat nonetheless. If members opt against meat on Fridays, chefs will prepare less of it. Another option would be to negotiate, instead of a meat-free Friday, a sustainable meal Friday for which all food is purchased from local producers and the most sustainable options, meat or fish or otherwise, are chosen for the menus. And as a separate issue, Ursites should think together, in conjunction with governing bodies, about how to provide better for vegan and vegetarian members, and what such members would like to see on the menu. Perhaps a standing order of at least one or two vegan options per meal, with another vegetarian option, and two meat options? Perhaps the quality and nutritional value of vegan and vegetarian provisions in hall is also a consideration?
Game meat also tends to be more sustainable. Let us not consider bear.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Conference Reform
Even for a one-day conference, PMB is highly skeptical about the ability of participants to productively engage with the content of presentations (paper after paper after paper). Particularly in the humanities, for which conventional delivery means literally reading a scholarly paper for 20-60 minutes and taking questions afterward, the amount of mental energy required to really stick with and think actively about someone's ideas for long periods of time (and then do it over again in the next session, paper after paper after paper) is daunting. For one, having someone read to you or talk at you for an hour is probably not the best way to transmit information, particularly information that relies on considerable attention to detail and sorting of complexity. Also, it would seem our attention span is not particularly suitable for the conventional conference presentation. There is always a new study detailing how quickly into an hour-long talk audience members begin to tune out, then to start thinking about sex. Now that technological distractions are possible, we have a slew of studies on the prevalence and uses of things like Twitter during conference presentations. If anything, the conference Twittering phenomenon suggests that people are looking for new ways to actively engage with the material being presented, and in many cases benefiting from such engagement.
PMB actually enjoys conferences, even though sometimes he begins thinking more about his own research than the research being presented, once launched off onto a thought-tangent (not necessarily a bad thing). But he would like to take some time to begin thinking about better ways of doing conferences. Here are some first proposals, admittedly geared primarily toward humanities conferences:
1) Drastically reduce the number of conference papers at a conference. Hold less than a handful of plenary sessions on broader topics (in relation to the conference topic) that touch on smaller topics (beneath the umbrella of the conference topic).
2) In accordance with 1, shift the emphasis of the conference from the conference paper or presentation to the mediated panel discussion. Develop a series of panels with pre-identified discussion topics. Assign a chair or co-chairs to each panel with some demonstrable degree of expertise in the subfield or subtopic that the panel is to address. Encourage scholars to come prepared with their own notes and references for the discussion to facilitate more specific and content-driven discussion.
3) Have conference attendees write a paper for the conference just as they do now, but have the paper available in digital format, organized by topic, for attendees to read rather than listen to. This admittedly causes a couple of problems re. preparation of digital materials (extra work for conference organizers) and opportunities for plagiarism of unpublished work. This idea needs work; though mainly it's aimed at providing a more efficient way of consuming the information in scholarly papers (reading) while allowing scholars to share work that hasn't yet been published (very important).
4) Networking is almost always one of the focal points of a conference, though we pretend that it's only a positive externality, a consequence of people getting together to read and listen to papers. Make the networking aspect of the conference more explicit by organizing meet-and-greet or informal discussion sessions for participants by research topic. Rely less on academic cliques deciding on their own terms to take the discussion to the local bar or restaurant.
These are some quick stabs at conference reform that PMB hopes to revise and reconsider at another time.
PMB actually enjoys conferences, even though sometimes he begins thinking more about his own research than the research being presented, once launched off onto a thought-tangent (not necessarily a bad thing). But he would like to take some time to begin thinking about better ways of doing conferences. Here are some first proposals, admittedly geared primarily toward humanities conferences:
1) Drastically reduce the number of conference papers at a conference. Hold less than a handful of plenary sessions on broader topics (in relation to the conference topic) that touch on smaller topics (beneath the umbrella of the conference topic).
2) In accordance with 1, shift the emphasis of the conference from the conference paper or presentation to the mediated panel discussion. Develop a series of panels with pre-identified discussion topics. Assign a chair or co-chairs to each panel with some demonstrable degree of expertise in the subfield or subtopic that the panel is to address. Encourage scholars to come prepared with their own notes and references for the discussion to facilitate more specific and content-driven discussion.
3) Have conference attendees write a paper for the conference just as they do now, but have the paper available in digital format, organized by topic, for attendees to read rather than listen to. This admittedly causes a couple of problems re. preparation of digital materials (extra work for conference organizers) and opportunities for plagiarism of unpublished work. This idea needs work; though mainly it's aimed at providing a more efficient way of consuming the information in scholarly papers (reading) while allowing scholars to share work that hasn't yet been published (very important).
4) Networking is almost always one of the focal points of a conference, though we pretend that it's only a positive externality, a consequence of people getting together to read and listen to papers. Make the networking aspect of the conference more explicit by organizing meet-and-greet or informal discussion sessions for participants by research topic. Rely less on academic cliques deciding on their own terms to take the discussion to the local bar or restaurant.
These are some quick stabs at conference reform that PMB hopes to revise and reconsider at another time.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Bad People
PMB was sitting at a wobbly table at Pret A Manger having a sandwich and reading John Carey's What Good Are The Arts? when he heard a loud splat. No, it wasn't the sound of Immanuel Kant's gravestone exploding or Jeanette Winterson falling flat on her face. A young woman accidentally dumped the half-eaten contents of her tray on the floor as she brought the tray to the waste bin. PMB was startled, then turned to observe what fell: a sandwich wrapper, a quarter of a sandwich (exploded into lettuce and bread parts), and a napkin. The woman made the effort to scoop up the sandwich wrapper and throw it in the bin, left the napkin and food on the floor, and walked off.
PMB contends that there is something deeply disturbing about this display. First, if one will make the effort to pick up some of the mess she made, why would she only pick up some of the mess? Second, since she knows that the mess is her mess, who does she assume will clean it up for her? Third, why should she assume that either her mess is fine where it is or that, if it's not fine where it is, someone else should clean it up for her? Fourth, is she immune to the rightful social pressure, applied through the disapproving stare of at least one onlooker, to mind one's own mess and be respectful of other people? Perhaps the most plausible answer to any of these questions is simple enough: she doesn't care.
PMB can only conclude that she is a bad and inconsiderate person, at least in this instance. No excuses will be made for such behavior.
PMB contends that there is something deeply disturbing about this display. First, if one will make the effort to pick up some of the mess she made, why would she only pick up some of the mess? Second, since she knows that the mess is her mess, who does she assume will clean it up for her? Third, why should she assume that either her mess is fine where it is or that, if it's not fine where it is, someone else should clean it up for her? Fourth, is she immune to the rightful social pressure, applied through the disapproving stare of at least one onlooker, to mind one's own mess and be respectful of other people? Perhaps the most plausible answer to any of these questions is simple enough: she doesn't care.
PMB can only conclude that she is a bad and inconsiderate person, at least in this instance. No excuses will be made for such behavior.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Capitalism Is Not The Same As "Free Enterprise"
One of the ways ignorant politicians sustain continuous innovation in the realms of Saying Stupid Things and Being Wrong, even after so much saying of stupid things and so much being wrong, is their impressive ability to misuse and conflate terms. The latest and most talked about example is the conservative-dominated Texas Board of Education, whose recent vote to re-write history textbooks according to a mixture of sometimes reasonable but mostly downright ridiculous takes on American history has caused quite a stir. The New York Times writes it up here.
PMB understands if, in economics curricula, the Texas Board wants to include prominent "free-market" economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek alongside equally-if-not-more-influential economists like Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. One should really have knowledge of all of these economists after taking an economics curriculum. And while PMB is not sympathetic to the dropping of the seminal figure Thomas Jefferson from curricula on the Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions, particularly in favor of that unenlightened and counter-Enlightenment hack John Calvin, if Texas Boarders really want to teach some theology they might adopt Thomas Aquinas, a serious thinker.
But what really makes PMB want to bare his teeth and claws is the completely imbecilic notion of replacing the word "capitalism" in textbooks with the phrase "free-enterprise system."
PMB should explain for conservatives that capitalism and free-enterprise (or free markets) are not the same thing. Fundamentally (because many conservatives like the Texas Board of Education's rightist faction lack fundamental knowledge of the things on which they vote), capitalism is a system in which the means of production (land, capital) are privately owned. Capitalism as such is often associated with free markets or laissez faire economic policies, though these are not actually necessary components of capitalism. In fact, the most successful capitalist country today is a communist country. In China, a mix of deregulation and draconian regulation and social measures have produced the world's most dynamic mode of capitalist production. Further, that the one-party (you guessed it, Communist) government maintains a degree of ownership of the means of production (contra traditional understandings of capitalism), doesn't overshadow the incentivizing of Chinese industry leaders with such high shares of the profits that the system is, in a very strange way, also kind of privatized.
Not knowing anything about Marxism, socialism, or communism aside, when "free-market" conservatives say things like "we've already witnessed the failure of Marxism/socialism/communism" in defense of capitalism, they get at least one thing right: we have indeed witnessed failures of non-capitalist systems of government--the failures of governments that own the means of production. In fact, there's hardly anywhere in the world where non-capitalist systems of government exist. This bit of information, which conservatives would be the first to point out, should serve as glaring evidence for conservatives that in fact there are many different ways for governments to regulate and manipulate capitalist systems to produce a vast range outcomes. There's a tremendous difference between government ownership of the means of production and heavy government regulation. This difference enables heavily regulating, even totalitarian governments to exercise capitalist systems. It also means that capitalist systems are not necessarily "free" or deregulated. After all, if Communist China can outperform the great beacon of capitalism, the freedom-loving utopia of the United States, in the great sport of capitalism, all of these conservatives should be second- and third-guessing themselves about equating "capitalism" with "free enterprise." They should likewise begin to let go of the ruinous assumption that capitalism as such necessarily makes for the freest societies. A glance across the globe reveals flourishing capitalist social-democracies in Western Europe, flourishing socialist-capitalist democracies in Scandinavia (where, I should add, the means of production are still mostly privately owned), and even a flourishing non-democratic-capitalist communist regime in China, in which the existence of capitalism has actually exacerbated many human rights problems instead of bringing "freedom" (widening gap between wealthy elite and poor; censorship; astonishing government execution rates, etc.). From these observations we can learn two important lessons: one, the redistribution of social resources isn't at all anti-capitalist; two, capitalism does not ensure democracy, freedom, or any other channels for the sustaining of basic human rights.
Even within American history, capitalism has not necessarily meant "free enterprise." Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury under America's first president, George Washington, within America's first government, fought to nationalize debt and establish a Federal bank. There were eventually LBJ's Great Society program and FDR's New Deal. Let's not forget the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, or the Glass-Steagall banking act of 1933 (later repealed), though "free-market" conservatives would like us to ignore these important moments in American history.
But can PMB really expect members of the Texas Board of Education to have been educated?
PMB understands if, in economics curricula, the Texas Board wants to include prominent "free-market" economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek alongside equally-if-not-more-influential economists like Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. One should really have knowledge of all of these economists after taking an economics curriculum. And while PMB is not sympathetic to the dropping of the seminal figure Thomas Jefferson from curricula on the Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions, particularly in favor of that unenlightened and counter-Enlightenment hack John Calvin, if Texas Boarders really want to teach some theology they might adopt Thomas Aquinas, a serious thinker.
But what really makes PMB want to bare his teeth and claws is the completely imbecilic notion of replacing the word "capitalism" in textbooks with the phrase "free-enterprise system."
PMB should explain for conservatives that capitalism and free-enterprise (or free markets) are not the same thing. Fundamentally (because many conservatives like the Texas Board of Education's rightist faction lack fundamental knowledge of the things on which they vote), capitalism is a system in which the means of production (land, capital) are privately owned. Capitalism as such is often associated with free markets or laissez faire economic policies, though these are not actually necessary components of capitalism. In fact, the most successful capitalist country today is a communist country. In China, a mix of deregulation and draconian regulation and social measures have produced the world's most dynamic mode of capitalist production. Further, that the one-party (you guessed it, Communist) government maintains a degree of ownership of the means of production (contra traditional understandings of capitalism), doesn't overshadow the incentivizing of Chinese industry leaders with such high shares of the profits that the system is, in a very strange way, also kind of privatized.
Not knowing anything about Marxism, socialism, or communism aside, when "free-market" conservatives say things like "we've already witnessed the failure of Marxism/socialism/communism" in defense of capitalism, they get at least one thing right: we have indeed witnessed failures of non-capitalist systems of government--the failures of governments that own the means of production. In fact, there's hardly anywhere in the world where non-capitalist systems of government exist. This bit of information, which conservatives would be the first to point out, should serve as glaring evidence for conservatives that in fact there are many different ways for governments to regulate and manipulate capitalist systems to produce a vast range outcomes. There's a tremendous difference between government ownership of the means of production and heavy government regulation. This difference enables heavily regulating, even totalitarian governments to exercise capitalist systems. It also means that capitalist systems are not necessarily "free" or deregulated. After all, if Communist China can outperform the great beacon of capitalism, the freedom-loving utopia of the United States, in the great sport of capitalism, all of these conservatives should be second- and third-guessing themselves about equating "capitalism" with "free enterprise." They should likewise begin to let go of the ruinous assumption that capitalism as such necessarily makes for the freest societies. A glance across the globe reveals flourishing capitalist social-democracies in Western Europe, flourishing socialist-capitalist democracies in Scandinavia (where, I should add, the means of production are still mostly privately owned), and even a flourishing non-democratic-capitalist communist regime in China, in which the existence of capitalism has actually exacerbated many human rights problems instead of bringing "freedom" (widening gap between wealthy elite and poor; censorship; astonishing government execution rates, etc.). From these observations we can learn two important lessons: one, the redistribution of social resources isn't at all anti-capitalist; two, capitalism does not ensure democracy, freedom, or any other channels for the sustaining of basic human rights.
Even within American history, capitalism has not necessarily meant "free enterprise." Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury under America's first president, George Washington, within America's first government, fought to nationalize debt and establish a Federal bank. There were eventually LBJ's Great Society program and FDR's New Deal. Let's not forget the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, or the Glass-Steagall banking act of 1933 (later repealed), though "free-market" conservatives would like us to ignore these important moments in American history.
But can PMB really expect members of the Texas Board of Education to have been educated?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)