Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Dog Meat With a Side of White Savior Complex

Could you imagine eating a dog or cat for dinner? I couldn't. I couldn't imagine eating any living creature. For personal reasons, I've been a vegetarian for the past 20 years.

Even among people who do eat meat, I'm hard pressed to think of someone who would eat a dog or a cat. I suspect in a country where we have many different sorts of people, there is likely one or two in modern America who would enjoy dining on a grilled dog fillet. Those people, however, are way outside the norm. As a society, we've largely decided on some animals as a source of food (cows, chickens, hogs) and other animals as pets (dogs, cats).

I know this hasn't always been the case. In her book Being with Animals, Barbara J. King wrote extensively about how early humans would eat dogs. It was likely our making meals of dogs that helped domesticate them into the furry companions many of us now enjoy. The most aggressive dogs, King wrote, would be the first to be bashed in the head and cooked for dinner. Those who were cutest, sweetest, and most affectionate were allowed to live, follow us around, reproduce, and become part of our communities.

Dogs are no longer regularly consumed as food in the Western world (though they are consumed as subjects of animal research). In other parts of the world, eating dogs has been part of traditional cuisines and indigenous medical practices throughout history. There are many regions in which dogs are still consumed for food or health.

While most Americans would look askance at people eating dogs, there are those people who do eat odd food in our society. Maybe a rural southerner who eats squirrel, an African American family that eats hog jowls or chitterlings, or perhaps a recent Chinese immigrant who eats chicken feet. We all know that those people is code for people who aren't White or otherwise fail to fit in with the middle class upwardly mobile depiction of what America is.

Maybe we don't all know that.

There is some minor tolerance in our culture for White middle class Americans to eat food that falls outside the norm--food those people eat. White folks can safely venture into an ethnic restaurant and have a culinary adventure. An exotic evening eating that strange food that those people eat.




Our judgements about what people eat for food are an interesting phenomena to explore. Whether it be moussaka or dog, what we consider acceptable and unacceptable foods reveal a complex set of social, cultural, and societal values and preferences.

A few days ago I came across a tweet that caught my eye about dog meat. It was a call to send a post card to President Park Geun-hye of South Korea. There is a long history of eating dog meat for nourishment and health in some segments of Korean society (see here for an excellent article about dog meat trade in another Asian country).

Puppies and kittens are adorable creatures. Why wouldn't I want to immediately send off a postcard to President Park Geun-hye? She should ban this practice immediately because--well, why? Because I am a white man that thinks dogs are pets and not food? Does she--or anyone in South Korea for that matter care what I think? Why would my viewpoints on what appropriate foods are matter?

We freely sign petitions, fire off emails and tweets, post angry Facebook statuses, and otherwise express our White Western displeasure with how the rest of the world conducts their business. We swoop in to save people (and animals) without really spending much time pondering whether anyone asked to be saved, whether anyone actually needs to be saved, and what our motives are for wanting to play the role of savior. We don't think about the larger constellation that exists in another country--traditions, cultures, values, economics, religions, and every other factor that goes into any given situation.
  • Who decides what needs to be changed? 
  • Who decides what is right or wrong in this world? 
  • What set of values, morals, and assumptions are these decisions based on?
I've wrestled with these questions ever since I was challenged during my dissertation defense by my  chair, Susan Hawes. In the course of questioning me about my research, she commented that what I suggested spoke to moral relativism. We were discussing homonegativity when Susan asked me how I determined what was right or wrong. I felt uncomfortable making a global statement that something was wrong when my judgement was based on my own personal values. I didn't have an answer for Susan then. I still don't.

Eating dogs isn't right for me. It breaks my heart to think of the trusting lovable dogs that are used for food. However, who am I to say that this is any more wrong that eating cows, ducks, or hogs? Are my values and mores superior to those of someone else? How would I begin to decide what was better?
  • Are there absolute rights and wrongs in this world? 
  • Who determines what those things are? 
  • Who gets to decide?
  • How do they decide?
On a practical level, I grapple with this issue daily in my work as a psychologist. I'm not sure it's my role to make determinations about what is right or wrong for a person in my role as a psychologist--except where I am required by law.
  • Should I stay with my girlfriend?
  • Do you think I should look for a new job?
  • Why can't I cut my arms and legs if it makes me feel better?
  • Is it worth being alive when I'm in so much pain?
  • My boyfriend beats me and I kind of like it. Is that wrong?
  • Why is god punishing me?
  • How can I feel better?
  • Why am I gay?
So many questions for which I have no answers. I often drive my patients crazy because of my refusal to answer with anything but more questions. On the other hand, I often also drive my patients crazy when I'm directive and hold too firmly to an idea about how I think they should be in this world.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine
--Indigo Girls
On a legal level, I am charged with protecting my patients from suicide, intervening if my clients are planning a homicide, and notifying authorities about children, elders, and people with disabilities who are being physically or sexually abused. The field has developed taxonomies of behaviors that are considered abnormal or aberrant. Protocol based therapies exist to ameliorate a variety of unwanted symptoms ranging for negative self worth, to erectile dysfunction, to vaginismus, to test taking anxiety.

Without thought, I can impose my viewpoint on how a person ought to function or behave through the theories and interventions of my profession. Is that moral? Is that right? 

Do any of us have the moral authority to sit in judgement of another culture or an individual? We inflict so much damage upon other people when we use our own values to judge another from culture that has a different set of values.

Do we have the right to demand a culture act in a way that suits our wishes and desires? Is it useful for us to send postcards and sign petitions asking Korean people who eat dog meat, and have done so for centuries, to stop? Did they ask for our opinion or help?

What makes us think we are any more right than they are?

Are we helping them or our we helping ourselves?

In sending a postcard have we built capacity for the people of South Korea to build their own animal rights movement? Does sending a postcard to the president of South Korea give us the sense we've done something so we can feel a release of energy and pat ourselves on the back? Do we save the animals even if it means we destroy a culture and tradition?

  • Are we that important that we can make those sorts of decisions?
  • Do we best help people by making them change?
  • Do we help by sharing the tools, resources, and experiences of our world so cultures and societies can build their own change movements?
  • Are there some moral outrages that are so outrageous that intervention is required? 
  • How do we decide what outrages merit this level of intervention? 
  • Have these interventions ever worked? 
  • Are their other options? 
Questions, and more questions, and questions as yet unformulated.
No answers please.
--Martha Crawford
After the page break are highlights from Twitter.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Dear Young Therapist: Sometimes Race and Sex Matter


In a recent post on Psychology Today, psychologist/blogger Todd Kashdan wrote a post entitled "Sometimes Race and Sex Don't Matter: An Attempt to Stop the Madness with Political Correctness Run Amok." He starts with a story about his six year old twin girls:

Its beautiful to observe how at 6-years of age, my twin girls do not describe friends, teachers, neighbors, or strangers by race. This is rather typical: 
"Dad, you know who I'm talking about, the guy with the nose that kind of bends around, with the puffy cheeks. Why are you looking at me like that, you know him, I've seen you talk to him." 
"Why does that guy with the round head and bunched up legs walk his dog in the rain?" 
"My best friend at school right now is Tamina. She wears glasses, her hair is long and crunchy, and she talks really fast." 
These interactions require my full mental capacity because unfortunately, I have no idea who the hell they are talking about. In my career as a psychologist, race becomes a paramount descriptor. And while there are many reasons to do this, I want to suggest that this has gotten out of control, causing more harm than good
The blogger appears to be promulgating a color-blind perspective that involves seeing a person as a whole rather than a person with a complexion of a particular skin tone. In the above quote, the blogger/psychologist  describes his children as not seeing people by their race because they make observations about stereotypical phenotype differences in people they encounter (texture of hair, shape of nose, etc.) rather than making a specific mention of their complexion.

Hidden within his proud fatherly talk about his children, Kashdan obscures a significant body of literature within the field of psychology about the color-blind approach to race and human differences. Here are a few highlights of the thousands of peer reviewed articles written about problems of being color-blind:

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Rape, Injustice "Facts," and a Call to Better Scholarship

Those of you who regularly pay attention to me on Twitter know that I go a little crazy over items presented as "facts" that are either not referenced or not verifiable. I've seen way too many examples of blatant misinformation spread as well as generally smart people who become misinformed vectors spreading about even more misinformation.

Take for example the Twitter entity known as InjusticeFacts. They describe themselves as "an open, circulating database of facts that deal with the injustices which plague our world." In general, I think the idea is great. There are copious amounts of horrible injustices that happen in the world. Many of us have no idea that they are occurring. Consciousness raising is an important tool of social change, and I'm glad Injustice Facts is doing some of that work.

My complaint is that Injustice Facts offers up sloppy scholarship. People can provide them "facts" through their website. The organizers of the website then disseminate those facts. Are the facts vetted? Are there references that are made available so we know that the fact is true? 

No. At lest Injustice Facts does not explicitly say they do fact checking. The organization also doesn't not respond to Tweets asking if they fact check.

Arguably, good scholarship involves checking out the veracity of information. Not everyone does that. I think an organization or person who presents things as facts has some responsibility to actually verify whether facts are facts -- or if they are propaganda. We've become too trusting, and have rapidly lost our ability to critically think about the world around us.

Yesterday, someone who  I follow on Twitter re-tweeted this:

 Injustice Facts 

29 women out of every 100,000 are raped in the U.S. each year, 1.6 women out of every 100,000 are raped in Canada each year.

My (somewhat snarky) response :

 Jason Mihalko 

@ 
.  I usually like my facts with a side of references.


My twitter follower's response, which has since been deleted by the follower, was "Questioning rape facts. Classy." I of course wasn't questioning rape. Violence is a despicable thing, and a good deal of my work as a psychologist is with women and men who have endured sexual violence. My complaint was about a disembodied fact--without reference, context, or verification--being represented as truth.

The snark probably obscured my message a bit.

I continued (I edited a few auto correct errors from my original tweets):

 Jason Mihalko 

@ 
I question our collective lack of critical thinking about information that is presented without reference  


 Jason Mihalko 

@ 
Why should I believe stats that aren't verified? That is not questioning rape. Its demanding good scholarship 

My twitter follower elected to unfollow me and ignore my responses. A shame, really, as she and I probably agree more than we disagree. I also think, by the way, that it's important to regularly be exposed to people who think differently than me. It makes my world bigger, richer and more diverse.

I've taken it upon myself to do a little fact checking. The UN's statistics for forcible rape in the United States for 2009 was 28.6 per 100,000 people. The count for Canada? 1.5 per 100,000 people. Ms. Magazine has put together a helpful table to demonstrate how difficult it is to get accurate statistics on rape. Scary, sad, and heartbreaking reading.

In this case Injustice Facts were accurate facts (there was a little rounding that happened). To be a more worthwhile source of information, and a trustworthy source of information, a simple addition of a reference would change everything.

It really isn't good enough to say something is true "because I said so." It's poor scholarship, breeds misinformation, and has the potential for great harm.

We need to be critical thinkers. We need to question what we read. We need to search out references to know that the facts we see are accurate and not propaganda. We need to be better scholars.

That is my point. I'm sad my Twitter follower didn't stick around long enough to hear me out.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Christian Terrorist

So those of you who closely follow my Twitter stream have likely discovered that I'm now on Tumblr. I use that space to keep track of things that I'm reading and thinking about. I've been reading a lot about the notion of compassion recently. One of those articles was by Martha Nussbaum.
In 2002, Hindu extremist organizations in India spurred attacks that killed over 2000 Muslims. "Approximately one-half of the dead were women. Children were killed with their parents; fetuses were ripped from the bellies of pregnant women to be tossed into the fire." p. 358 
Nussbaum, M.C. (2008). The Clash Within: Democracy and the Hindu Right. Journal of Human Development, 3, 357-357

If you are interested in hearing Martha Nussbaum deliver this speech, click here on this link. It's a poor quality video--you'll need to skip about 6:30 minutes until there is actual talking.

My Tumblr is linked to Twitter, so whenever I post something there a tweet is generated and sent out into the universe. Generally I think this is a good thing: I read some obscure things; many people don't read obscure things; the bits and pieces of what I read might spur others to think about things they wouldn't otherwise consider. All good, right?

The Nussbaum tweet quickly brought me to my new title, and the title of this blog post, Christian Terrorist. How did this happen? 

Sandeep Singh
indiaandislam Sandeep Singh 
@ 
@jaypsyd Hey Terrorist of CHRIST ..Why not have a Debate on New Testament "the 
BOOK OF HATE " Vs the BOOK of LOVE GITA

Of course, why send one Tweet when you can send two.


Hindu IDF
HinduIDF Hindu IDF 
@ 
@jaypsyd Hey Terrorist of CHRIST ..Why not have a Debate on New Testament "the BOOK OF HATE " Vs the BOOK of LOVE GITA


Probably what happened is that someone set up a program to search for any mention of the word Hindu on Twitter. My tweet, mentioning Hindu extremism, got the person's notice. What I should have done was ignore the tweet. It would have been easier. However, I have documented difficulty not responding to things such as this. I always think I'm going to be helpful.


 Jason Mihalko 
@ 
 I'd be happy to have a real dialogue with you, but let's start by not assuming I am Christian. Polarization gets us nowhere.


It's hard to have a complete thought in 140 characters. I probably came on too strong.


 Hindu IDF 
@ 
 When U call Hindu militants ? & wht is the Problem when we call Christian Militants ? wht Polarization ? Just debate ? rt ?



 Jason Mihalko 
@ 
 The quote made reference to an extremist organization, not all Hindus. I would never group all people into one category.


Things went downhill pretty fast.


 Puneet verma 
@ 
  These are abrahaminic faiths that polarize. You may as well be a marxist pseudo-Hindu trash.


Rajdeep Sardesai
rajdeepsardesai Rajdeep Sardesai 
blocked @jaypsyd . A true bigot who believes 2000 muslims were killed in 2002 gujarat riots.


Hindu IDF
HinduIDF Hindu IDF 
@ 
@jaypsyd U Stupid Lawyers is more authentic than Government of India & Other resources provided Indian's ? Racist Bastard..that is wht U R


Rajdeep Sardesai
rajdeepsardesai Rajdeep Sardesai 
@ 
This @jaypsyd guy does appear to be a bigot. Ill block him now.@HinduIDF @NishkaK
Hindu IDF
HinduIDF Hindu IDF 
@NishkaK True...A racist is a Racist and this Guy is a Racist@jaypsyd and no amount of Data or Books will change his Mind set


Nishka Krishna
NishkaK Nishka Krishna 
@ 
@jaypsyd you guys @rajdeepsardesai @HinduIDF r wasting ur time. This person is brainwashed & will just use ur argumnts agnst hapless indics


How did I go from a Martha Nussbaum quote, to being called a Christian Terrorist, to being called a racist bigot, brainwashed, and let's not forget my favorite, pseudo-Hindu Marxist trash?

I mistakenly entered into a geopolitical argument. I'm not Indian, I'm not Hindu, and I'm not Muslim. I'm a psychologist writing a book about compassion who happened to dig up an article about a 2002 riot in India. I was interested in what Nussbaum had to say about compassion. I also wanted to keep track of that quote because I really don't know much about the politics in India. I wanted to come back to the quote so I could learn more.

From what I can best gather, there was an explosion on a train and many Hindu pilgrims were killed. Some say that a Muslim organization planned the attack. Other's have concluded that a cook stove that a pilgrim brought aboard caused the explosion. What international observers have documented is that in the ensuing confusion and violence, over 2,000 Muslims were killed along with many Hindu people.

The quote from Nussbaum was heartbreaking--hate and anger directed toward any human life is always something that breaks my heart. There is not excuse for it, and I see no place for it in our modern world.

So back to being a Christian terrorist and pseudo-Hindu Marxist trash.

I asked for dialogue. I tried, as best I could, to be open to listening to another person's viewpoint. I also asked for references. I asked my twitter dialogue partners to provide me documentation that might support ideas that were being presented as facts. When presented with propaganda, I called it as such, and asked for resources that could be verified.

I responded like a Western academic. Many of you might have done the same. This is not likely a particularly helpful move. Please make a note of it.

What I didn't do was respond with compassion. I didn't hear the fear and anger in the voices of my twitter dialogue partners. In responding to their deliciously ridiculous claims about me, I ended up becoming slightly protective of my own position. An honest thing to do, Not a productive one. I chose to try to teach here rather than listen.

I could have done better. While my twitter dialogue partners were rather insistent that if I didn't see it their way, I was seeing it the wrong way, I didn't need to come from the same stance. I got into a situation where I was on the defensive, being asked to prove I wasn't a bigot, and only being allowed to do if I agreed with what someone else was representing as truth.

There isn't really a good way out of that situation.

Does this make me a Christian Terrorist, pseudo-Hindu Marxist trash, or a bigot? Not really. At least I don't think so. In the end, however, I really need to let other people decide this based on my behaviors and actions.

Dialogue is hard. We all are prone to engaging in the eternal game of "Who is right?" or "My idea is better than your idea". It's painfully difficult to enter into a polarized dialogue where both sides want to see the other as the other.

That's important enough that I want to say it again: It is painfully difficult to enter into dialogue where both sides want to make the other side into "the other". What does that mean? In order to be right, to be important, to be safe, we human beings tend to make what is different from us into "the other." The other is a thing to be hated. A thing to be diminished. A thing to be ignored. To accept the other can be a threat to self. A threat to our own existence.

Did I "other" my Twitter dialogue partners? Not too  much. I was annoyed and frustrated, yes. I failed to take a compassionate stance toward their experience. I didn't hate them, objectify them, or intentionally turn them into an other -- I felt though that I was becoming the other in their eyes.

It makes for some difficult times. We can make another choice and become open to vulnerability--we can be open to the other and in doing so, can help recognize our common shared humanity.