The NHS bill is to be debated again in parliament very soon. The effect of this bill would be to alter then nature of our health system utterly. Please email your MP to ask them to attend the debate and vote against the bill.
You can find out who your MP is and send them a message at www.theyworkforyou.com. It only takes two minutes and could make your life, and the life of everyone else, better for decades to come.
To me the NHS is probably the best thing about our silly little country, a view reinforced by living in several countries where there is not the same provision in place. Just quite wonderful the NHS is doesn't sink in until you have had to muddle through with an unattended broken arm because someone made a mistake with your insurance forms.
If you are undecided as to whether or not you think the bill should be rejected, here are a few points to note:
The NHS as it is consistently comes out of academic studies as one of the best and most efficient healthcare systems in the world (e.g., http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/42050/1/How_the_NHS_measures_up_to_other_health_systems_(LSERO).pdf).
The people who actually work in the NHS have resoundingly rejected the bill. The length of the list of professional bodies that have said they don't support it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic (http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/what-do-doctors-nurses-say-about-the-nhsbill).
The government's arguments about the bill being needed because of things such as poor cancer survival rates or steeply rising drug costs are based on lies or misrepresentations (e.g. http://justanotherbleedingblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-case-for-change.html). Similarly, their arguments based on falling productivity are false (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/13/nhs-productivity-risen-lansley-study).
Many of the MPs and Lords voting on the bill stand to profit directly from it through links with private healthcare and health insurance companies – 80 in the House of Lords alone (http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.com/2012/02/nhs-privatisation-compilation-of.html). These links have often gone less than honestly disclosed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/29/lansley-ally-shareholding-lobby-firm). The political parties putting forward the bill also received hundreds of thousands of pounds from firms that will profit from the bill (see first link).
The bill, by opening up the NHS to competition, makes it subject to EU competition laws. This means that the currently primary responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide free and comprehensive healthcare to all will be superseded by the legal duty to go for the lowest bidder (http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/ldconf/).
The bill has been drafted in conjunction with those who are going to profit directly from it, including McKinsey, the company that consulted on the privatisation of the railways that we all know and love (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099940/NHS-health-reforms-Extent-McKinsey--Companys-role-Andrew-Lansleys-proposals.html).
The government's whole approach to the issue has been dishonest and arrogant. (Inviting only the people that support you to meetings on the issue? Classy. http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/who-is-and-is-not-invited-to-camerons-emergen)
The bill is around 650 pages long and, in the words of Liberal Democrat, Simon Hughes, “badly written” – you would have to have a far greater faith in humanity than I to believe that there aren't some unintended (or indeed intended) bad consequences amongst all that bureaucratise. Remember the 'terrorism' laws that were written in such a way as to allow councils to spy on people's bin usage or for police to stop and search thousands of people for no reason?
The changes put forward in the bill were not in the election manifesto of any party. Nobody voted for this. Almost everything David Cameron said about the NHS before the election was a lie (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-top-ten-lies-692469).
So, make up your own mind and if you think that something should be done to preserve one of our finest institutions then...do something.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Inter-generational responsibility
I used to quite like Shirley Williams, based entirely on her usually sensible and interesting appearances on various BBC discussion programmes. My opinion of her has been utterly changed by her actions at the Lib Dem conference, with her working to preserve the NHS bill.
Having heard of that, I started going through this, becoming increasingly horrified as I did so. The point concerning competition law in relation to the proposed changes is not one that I had considered before - by changing the NHS from a state system to one that includes outside providers then it becomes liable to EU regulations on competition and government tendering. This then utterly changes the structure of the system - the responsibilities of the government become not to provide good quality health care to all but instead to get the lowest bidder and comply with the competition regulations. The result of this change will be to stop the NHS being the NHS.
A little question I want to raise, then, is the justice of this woman acting in a way that is entirely politically motivated but which will have huge detrimental effects for proceeding generations (and, indeed, those of us with hopefully quite a few decades left in us). As a matter of biology she will be dead in the not too distant future and so will not have to live with the effects of her short-term political posturing (not that someone as rich as her would anyway...) - surely such actions must be immoral, not to say shameful?
Having heard of that, I started going through this, becoming increasingly horrified as I did so. The point concerning competition law in relation to the proposed changes is not one that I had considered before - by changing the NHS from a state system to one that includes outside providers then it becomes liable to EU regulations on competition and government tendering. This then utterly changes the structure of the system - the responsibilities of the government become not to provide good quality health care to all but instead to get the lowest bidder and comply with the competition regulations. The result of this change will be to stop the NHS being the NHS.
A little question I want to raise, then, is the justice of this woman acting in a way that is entirely politically motivated but which will have huge detrimental effects for proceeding generations (and, indeed, those of us with hopefully quite a few decades left in us). As a matter of biology she will be dead in the not too distant future and so will not have to live with the effects of her short-term political posturing (not that someone as rich as her would anyway...) - surely such actions must be immoral, not to say shameful?
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Falklands - some silliness within the silliness
To paraphrase the author of this article on the Falklands in the London Review of Books, I can't say that I have ever had a strong opinion about said islands. The article (by Jenny Diski) did have two aspects that I found notable, however.
The first of these was the author's referencing of the manner in which Mrs Thatcher exploited the Falklands War in order to boost her re-election chances in '83. The jingoistic use of the islands in '83 is (as I read it) put forward as a debating point to reinforce the correctness of the current Argentine position – what is not considered, it seems, is the possibility that Mrs Kirchner is using the islands in an equally exploitative manner. The Argentine economic situation is not wholly rosy, with falling growth and rising inflation (up to 25% by some estimates) which the government has had to pull some dubious tricks in order to keep on top of (nationalising private pensions, allegedly cooking the inflation statistics, and so on). Conditions, then, not dissimilar to those faced by the Tories thirty years ago (or, indeed, by the Argentinian Junta at that time also). The use of international issues to gloss over the domestic is a classic political move - why only pick up on one side's use of it though? (Particularly if, as the author does, you are going to propose a potential, but very unlikely, use in the future by one side (i.e., Cameron doing a Thatcher) whilst ignoring the actual ongoing use by the other.) To do so marks one out as rather parochial to my eyes.
The second point is the credulous acceptance of the Argentinian position that the sea around the Falklands (i.e., the South Atlantic) are 'their shores'. This was interesting to me not so much because of the political particulars of this case but because of the presupposition of what could be described as nationalist essentialism.
Under international law the Falklands are not in Argentinian waters - to propose that they are, then, requires the idea that the boundaries of countries are somehow natural. The Falklands are closest to Argentina therefore they are a natural part of the entity that is 'Argentina', and that the distance makes them an unnatural part of 'Britain' (the islands forming Britain presumably being the natural extent of the latter entity).
However, nations are not natural entities - they are man-made constructs, the boundaries of which are entirely arbitrary. Thus a country that includes some islands thousands of miles away is no less unnatural or absurd than a country that stops at this river rather than that one (for example). This should be especially obvious in South America where all of the countries are fairly recent constructs of some cartographer's pen. The idea that nations are somehow natural entities is where nationalism in part stems from, and that dangerous ideology should be avoided as much as possible.
This is all not to say that there aren't arguments for the transfer of the Falklands to Argentina, just that they aren't based on silly things like the perceived righteousnesses of one party or the idea of national essences.
The first of these was the author's referencing of the manner in which Mrs Thatcher exploited the Falklands War in order to boost her re-election chances in '83. The jingoistic use of the islands in '83 is (as I read it) put forward as a debating point to reinforce the correctness of the current Argentine position – what is not considered, it seems, is the possibility that Mrs Kirchner is using the islands in an equally exploitative manner. The Argentine economic situation is not wholly rosy, with falling growth and rising inflation (up to 25% by some estimates) which the government has had to pull some dubious tricks in order to keep on top of (nationalising private pensions, allegedly cooking the inflation statistics, and so on). Conditions, then, not dissimilar to those faced by the Tories thirty years ago (or, indeed, by the Argentinian Junta at that time also). The use of international issues to gloss over the domestic is a classic political move - why only pick up on one side's use of it though? (Particularly if, as the author does, you are going to propose a potential, but very unlikely, use in the future by one side (i.e., Cameron doing a Thatcher) whilst ignoring the actual ongoing use by the other.) To do so marks one out as rather parochial to my eyes.
The second point is the credulous acceptance of the Argentinian position that the sea around the Falklands (i.e., the South Atlantic) are 'their shores'. This was interesting to me not so much because of the political particulars of this case but because of the presupposition of what could be described as nationalist essentialism.
Under international law the Falklands are not in Argentinian waters - to propose that they are, then, requires the idea that the boundaries of countries are somehow natural. The Falklands are closest to Argentina therefore they are a natural part of the entity that is 'Argentina', and that the distance makes them an unnatural part of 'Britain' (the islands forming Britain presumably being the natural extent of the latter entity).
However, nations are not natural entities - they are man-made constructs, the boundaries of which are entirely arbitrary. Thus a country that includes some islands thousands of miles away is no less unnatural or absurd than a country that stops at this river rather than that one (for example). This should be especially obvious in South America where all of the countries are fairly recent constructs of some cartographer's pen. The idea that nations are somehow natural entities is where nationalism in part stems from, and that dangerous ideology should be avoided as much as possible.
This is all not to say that there aren't arguments for the transfer of the Falklands to Argentina, just that they aren't based on silly things like the perceived righteousnesses of one party or the idea of national essences.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Commonwealth - a charter for what?
I was asked to give my opinion on the proposed Charter for the Commonwealth this week (amusingly and inaccurately as a representative of 'the youth').
The first thing that strikes one about the whole thing is the utter ghastliness of the language and structure used - just the preamble reads like a cross between a child's acrostic and a PR man's wet-dream. An aesthetic insult, but also an unneeded signpost to the tensions inherent within the whole project. A couple of sentences of essentially inarguable content would seem far more sensible than the paragraph after paragraph of questionable drivel that they have gone for.
The body of the whole thing suffers from similar problems. Written in classic bureaucrat-ese, it lies somewhere between a political document intended to rouse and unite people towards a cause and a legal text. It seems to want to do both, and fails at each. The quasi-legalistic formulation makes it unreadable and irrelevant to a normal human being - not great qualities in a document defining an organisation already struggling for relevance. As a legal document it is a nightmare given the poor drafting and vague concepts asserted (some of which, such as 'cultural rights' are outright dangerous). To quote Lord Bingham, the rule of law requires that "the law be clear, accessible, and intelligible".
Of course, the sad elephant in the room of the legalistic formulation is that every word in the thing is utterly unenforceable as the Commonwealth is toothless (tusk-less?). That's a reality I wouldn't particularly wish to highlight were I writing the thing. Instead of following the established way of doing things - a way that appeals only those already within the political system - why do the drafters not go a bit freestyle? Write something short and simple that will make sense to anybody and which will allow most people to see why the ideas put forward may be relevant to them.
A further problem arises for the document out of the quasi-legal structure, namely the order of the points made. The numbering of the points is, I'm sure, not meant to reflect their importance, but in a symbolic document symbolism is probably pretty important. The rule of law, freedom of speech, these all come in at the double digits - economic development though, that's number two. I would be the last to discount the importance of economic development for the wellbeing of people; I would just argue that perhaps the rule of law and freedom of expression underly said development and, more importantly, are greater aims for humanity to at least give lip-service to.
On a slightly more political note, the formulation of said point two is really quite an unpleasant one. It prescribes economic development unrestrained by any principles. Is that really what they want the Commonwealth to stand for? China has had fantastic economic development, but does that trump the the obscene inequality in where the proceeds of that development have been concentrated, the organs farmed from prisoners, the homeless peasants, the burning monks? Economic growth that furthers the interests of the poor and the weak, that I can support. Or are we all still pretending to believe in trickle-down economics and the ability of bits of paper filled with 'rights' and 'aspirations' but backed up by no action to protect the downtrodden from the powerful?
That, though, is one of the major problems with the Commonwealth. There is an argument for it being a useful organisation by championing the common people of its member states, providing support and opportunities for them and protecting them by actively working to enforce the rule of law. As it is, though, I can't see it as anything more than a talking shop for powerful people to carve up their exploitation opportunities (with a few nice bits, like scholarships, stuck on the side). Point two highlights this as it provides an excuse for all the wicked things that the politicians and businessmen would like to do. "Sure we are abusing our people a little, but it is necessary so that we can have economic development..." (But I'm sure that never crossed the minds of the nice politicians and businessmen that drafted the thing even once.)
For all the talk of rights and rule of law in the Charter, until that talk is backed up by genuine action to make sure that every man and woman living within the Commonwealth is equal before the law then the thing is not even worth the paper it is written on.
The first thing that strikes one about the whole thing is the utter ghastliness of the language and structure used - just the preamble reads like a cross between a child's acrostic and a PR man's wet-dream. An aesthetic insult, but also an unneeded signpost to the tensions inherent within the whole project. A couple of sentences of essentially inarguable content would seem far more sensible than the paragraph after paragraph of questionable drivel that they have gone for.
The body of the whole thing suffers from similar problems. Written in classic bureaucrat-ese, it lies somewhere between a political document intended to rouse and unite people towards a cause and a legal text. It seems to want to do both, and fails at each. The quasi-legalistic formulation makes it unreadable and irrelevant to a normal human being - not great qualities in a document defining an organisation already struggling for relevance. As a legal document it is a nightmare given the poor drafting and vague concepts asserted (some of which, such as 'cultural rights' are outright dangerous). To quote Lord Bingham, the rule of law requires that "the law be clear, accessible, and intelligible".
Of course, the sad elephant in the room of the legalistic formulation is that every word in the thing is utterly unenforceable as the Commonwealth is toothless (tusk-less?). That's a reality I wouldn't particularly wish to highlight were I writing the thing. Instead of following the established way of doing things - a way that appeals only those already within the political system - why do the drafters not go a bit freestyle? Write something short and simple that will make sense to anybody and which will allow most people to see why the ideas put forward may be relevant to them.
A further problem arises for the document out of the quasi-legal structure, namely the order of the points made. The numbering of the points is, I'm sure, not meant to reflect their importance, but in a symbolic document symbolism is probably pretty important. The rule of law, freedom of speech, these all come in at the double digits - economic development though, that's number two. I would be the last to discount the importance of economic development for the wellbeing of people; I would just argue that perhaps the rule of law and freedom of expression underly said development and, more importantly, are greater aims for humanity to at least give lip-service to.
On a slightly more political note, the formulation of said point two is really quite an unpleasant one. It prescribes economic development unrestrained by any principles. Is that really what they want the Commonwealth to stand for? China has had fantastic economic development, but does that trump the the obscene inequality in where the proceeds of that development have been concentrated, the organs farmed from prisoners, the homeless peasants, the burning monks? Economic growth that furthers the interests of the poor and the weak, that I can support. Or are we all still pretending to believe in trickle-down economics and the ability of bits of paper filled with 'rights' and 'aspirations' but backed up by no action to protect the downtrodden from the powerful?
That, though, is one of the major problems with the Commonwealth. There is an argument for it being a useful organisation by championing the common people of its member states, providing support and opportunities for them and protecting them by actively working to enforce the rule of law. As it is, though, I can't see it as anything more than a talking shop for powerful people to carve up their exploitation opportunities (with a few nice bits, like scholarships, stuck on the side). Point two highlights this as it provides an excuse for all the wicked things that the politicians and businessmen would like to do. "Sure we are abusing our people a little, but it is necessary so that we can have economic development..." (But I'm sure that never crossed the minds of the nice politicians and businessmen that drafted the thing even once.)
For all the talk of rights and rule of law in the Charter, until that talk is backed up by genuine action to make sure that every man and woman living within the Commonwealth is equal before the law then the thing is not even worth the paper it is written on.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
On misogyny and the translation of swearing
Some years ago I helped my Polish flatmate a little to prepare for one of her English exams. In doing this I came across a marvellous worksheet detailing the usage of the word “fuck”. Until one sees this presented to someone trying to learn the language, one never quite realises the variety and complexity of this superficially simple word’s usage. Those four letters can have good meanings, bad meanings, erotic meanings, violent meanings, no meaning beyond quasi-punctuation (if you are from Glasgow anyway), mean excitement, mean fear...the list goes on. Then, at the end of the worksheet was the sage advice – “If you are not entirely certain that you usage of the word is correct, do not use it.”
This worksheet was brought to mind today as I read an article that has within it the use of the word “cunt”. In the article the author highlights her being called this as an obvious example of misogyny. Now, in the particular case that she describes it may well be, but this assertion that any calling of a woman a cunt is proof positive of the insulter’s hatred of women interested me as this word has been something of an issue for me following my moving to the other side of the Atlantic.
In Glasgow (at least amongst my contemporaries – my Gran wouldn’t have fitted into the following generalisation, for instance) the word “cunt” has similarly varied usage as the word “fuck”. It is not uncommon to hear it used in a friendly greeting (“alright, what yoose cunts up’tae?”), is quite often used in the course of the telling of a humorous story (“so there I was wi all these cunts looking at me wi just ma pants on”), and has made the transition to verb (to cunt something up). Importantly, the word, as I have experienced it, is essentially gender neutral. If anything I would say that it is used far more in reference to males (or mixed groups) than to females – I can’t really think of many times where I have heard it used in an angry context towards a woman. If someone is described as a cunt then one knows that they are an unpleasant individual, but my assumption would be likely to be that they were male.
Shifting to North America I discovered that, just as my flatmate had a learning curve to mount with “fuck”, so too did I with the now seemingly foreign “cunt”. Carrying on speaking as I would with friends at home, my use of “fuck” as a punctuation mark raised a few metaphorical murmurs, but my laissez faire use of “cunt” produced actual overt reactions from people. I quickly learned that there are none of the sophistications in usage over here, none of the contextual subtleties – it’s a bad word that is used to be bad, and, importantly, is used with far more specificity towards females.
All well and good – I’ve tried to not use it and get far fewer dirty looks as a result (for that sin anyway). What really interested me though was my reaction when I first heard someone use it in anger towards a woman with the specific meaning that they were female and bad. Never in my life can I remember being shocked by language, but when I heard this there was indeed an element of the shocking to it – what was a perfectly normal word to me in the contexts that I experienced its usage had become extremely ugly in the context that it is used over here.
Going back to the article, the author refers to an occasion where she is referred to as a cunt. She interprets this as an obvious example of misogyny – the person has called her a cunt therefore they hate women. In my Glasgow context I could never have understood how she could even begin to reach that conclusion (remembering that cunt is a widely used and essentially gender neutral term there). Having now understood the North American context a little better, the leap that she makes is somewhat less baffling – the word really is used to insult women specifically here. What could be described as my contextual empathy helped me see where she was coming from a little more (if not agree with her).
Reading the comments on the article, though, I saw a need for some contextual empathy in the opposite direction. The necessary connection with using the word cunt and the user’s hatred of women was argued for strongly and seemed to be the default position of many of those commenting. From my Glasgow perspective, however, that assertion is simply nonsensical. The word has many meanings and many uses. One of these will no doubt be by a woman-hater to abuse a woman, but more far more likely is that it will be someone greeting their friends or telling a story in a pub.
The groundbreaking conclusion, then, is that context is everything. Language is not rigid and words cannot be used as some sort of essentialist discriminator for people. Similarly, words in and of themselves are not ontologically simple – they cannot just be categorised as good or bad, hating or loving. The person calling someone a cunt may in fact be being affectionate towards them – their usage of the word does not define them as one thing or another (other than as either somewhat foul-mouthed or Glaswegian, perhaps). Similarly, they may indeed be insulting someone, but there is no necessary link between them using the term and their insults being motivated by that person’s ovaries. And then there are, sadly, those pathetic individuals who are using the word against women because they are women. Sorting these out from each other requires this contextual empathy, just as understanding a North American feminist’s reaction to the word does for me.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Hawtin and Proust
The shuffle button today provided my ears with a Ritchie Hawtin set recorded at the Arches in Glasgow some years ago - a night at which I was at.
Hearing the music took me straight back to those sweaty catacombs. Memories came to mind of the feeling of the speaker-maddened air moving my insides; of the combined sensations of light and sound as the anticipated drop hit; of the feeling of rightness of being there with exactly the people I was with and at exactly that time.
All very invigorating for a journey on a grey Hong Kong bus, but probably all completely fabricated. Thinking rationally about it I can't pick out that night from all the others; that one dose of bass or that one drop from the many that I enjoyed around that time of my life. Much more likely that I have been doing a bit of confabulation based on my recognition that I was there and so should have such memories.
Does that matter? Not really, I don't think. The feeling and recognition was a genuine one of my general experiences around that time. That my brain chose to attach some specific, although imagined, link between those states and the night a recording of which I happened to be listening to doesn't seem to detract from the specialness of my true but more generalised memories.
Nor does it take away from the train of thought that the memories initiated - all the people that came to mind that are linked with that time, some of whom I have spoken to recently, some not since then, and some that we will sadly never get to speak to again.
Now if only there were any decent clubs in this city...
Hearing the music took me straight back to those sweaty catacombs. Memories came to mind of the feeling of the speaker-maddened air moving my insides; of the combined sensations of light and sound as the anticipated drop hit; of the feeling of rightness of being there with exactly the people I was with and at exactly that time.
All very invigorating for a journey on a grey Hong Kong bus, but probably all completely fabricated. Thinking rationally about it I can't pick out that night from all the others; that one dose of bass or that one drop from the many that I enjoyed around that time of my life. Much more likely that I have been doing a bit of confabulation based on my recognition that I was there and so should have such memories.
Does that matter? Not really, I don't think. The feeling and recognition was a genuine one of my general experiences around that time. That my brain chose to attach some specific, although imagined, link between those states and the night a recording of which I happened to be listening to doesn't seem to detract from the specialness of my true but more generalised memories.
Nor does it take away from the train of thought that the memories initiated - all the people that came to mind that are linked with that time, some of whom I have spoken to recently, some not since then, and some that we will sadly never get to speak to again.
Now if only there were any decent clubs in this city...
Monday, July 11, 2011
Love, Straw Men and Neuromania
Love – that wonder of the gods, those arrows of that knavish lad, Cupid – would seem too ineffable a concept for one to study it scientifically. Indeed, to put someone in a scanner and see what happens in ‘love’ would seem to miss the point of it and its influence on our culture completely.
There are neuroimaging studies of love, however, where scientists have done just that. Is this proof positive, then, of an overreaching reductionism in science and in our culture in general? A prime example of the ‘neuromania’ that is said to be sweeping our shores?
Firstly let’s take a brief look at these studies. A search of the Pubmed database for the terms “love” and “fMRI” returns around ten studies that involve neuroimaging and love-related topics, spread out over the last decade. These topics include romantic love, maternal love, and the grief involved in losing a loved one.
Taking “The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love” (Bartels, 2004) as an example, a group of 20 mothers were passively shown passport style pictures of either their own child or a number of control pictures (a child other than their own whom they had know for as long as their own child, their best friend, and another acquaintance). This approach is similar to that adopted by the same authors in their previous study of romantic love, where pictures of the person’s lover were used instead of those of the child (Bartels, 2000), and a comparison of the two is included in the present study.
By contrasting the activity evoked by the viewing of their child to that evoked by the viewing of the control pictures, the authors identify those regions of the brain that show a greater level activity during that condition.
 |
| Bartels, 2004. Fig. 3 |
As can be seen, a similar network of regions was found to display greater activity during the viewing of both one’s child and one’s lover. These regions included the ever-present anterior cingulate and anterior insula pairing, along with what is generally referred to as the ‘reward’ system (that phrase and its inaccuracy is perhaps the subject of a future post).
Whilst the study suffers from the usual problem of ‘so what’ that befalls most of these purely anatomical-region based neuroimaging studies, perhaps the most interesting finding is that there is some involvement of the periaqueductal grey (PAG) when a mother views a picture of her child but not when an individual views a picture of their lover. Such a finding can be seen in the context of the excellent work investigating maternal bonding processes that has been undertaken in non-human animals, and can potentially be usefully extended out into psychological ideas of attachment.
So the study doesn’t tell us much, but nor do its authors claim that it does (“These results have thus brought us a little, but not much, closer to understanding the neural basis of one of the most formidable instruments of evolution” Bartels, 2004, p1164). So what of the idea that studies of its kind represent an example of how scientists, and in particular neuroscientists, are seeking to explain away the world, as proponents of such an idea, such as Raymond Tallis, would claim?
Such criticism would seem to hold that such studies seek to reduce humanity to the chemicals and processes that make up the individual and that in doing so they either must necessarily fail in the task that they are said to be attempting, or that if they were to be accepted as succeeding then we would lose something integral to our humanity.
One problem with such a line of reasoning is that it appears to conflate two different entities. The argument is that science is seeking to explain away the wonderful variations and achievements of humanity. But, if we look at, for example, the studies of love, what is being studied is the human, not humanity. These two concepts are not identical; indeed that point is one of the core tenants of, for example, Prof. Tallis’ view.
Take as an analogy an anthill – we can study and understand the physiology of an individual ant, but that will not necessarily give us a complete understanding of the organisational system of the anthill as a whole. The person studying the individual ant would not seek to claim that it did, however. What they can provide are the individual-specific factors that shape and limit the higher-order organisation that arises within the anthill as a whole for someone else who’s focus lies with this higher-order question to go on and use.
What these studies are seeking to do is not to explain the functioning of the whole metaphorical anthill. Instead all they aim to do is to see what happens within the individual in a particular set of circumstances. The authors express no desire to make Shakespeare’s sonnets redundant, no quest to replace Barry White with brain scans; nor do they make any claims about the ultimate meaning of their findings beyond tentative suggestions about neural and psychological processes.
The critic of such studies could also point out that such simplistic studies can never capture or explain the varieties of experience involved in being in love. That is obviously true, but is only an objection if one is committed to an ontology in which there is just one monolithic entity ‘being in love’. Such an ontological position seems unsustainable, however. Much more realistic, and the one that is more in line with the critic’s overall worldview, is one that proposes a range of experiences that can be subsumed under the class ‘being in love’.
Within this class will be the jump in your stomach when you see your loved one, the way that your loved one looks better than anyone else to you, the willingness to do anything for another, and so on. Each of these things will be interconnected and interdependent, but there is still scope to study what is involved in each of them, studies that can proceed at different levels of explanation. What are the specific transmitters that cause the ‘jump’? What are the brain processes that alter one’s perception of the objective physical characteristics of another? What are the social factors that influence the norms of commitment between people? All interesting questions, and none of them reductive (as far as I can see).
Ten studies over a decade in a field that produces thousands of papers a year is not very many at all. Having actually looked at them, to hold up a small set of studies that look at a fascinating aspect of human experience in just one of many the ways open to us as representing an example of the overreach of science in its supposed quest to reduce the world to physics would seem odd, if not disingenuous.
It may ultimately only be possible to conclude from the studies that a certain set of brain regions display more activity when one looks at one type of pictures when compared to another set, but surely finding out even that limited piece of information, motivated by nothing but curiosity, is a pretty admirable thing to be doing?
Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love NeuroReport, 11 (17), 3829-3834 DOI: 10.1097/00001756-200011270-00046
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)