Having said that, however, I need to also say, I don’t believe in everything. I don’t believe there is a devil, for example. I don’t believe there’s some evil guy out there going to burn you in hell for making a mistake or two. I also don’t believe in “karma.” I don’t think the universe is one big prison cell where the bad “go down” and the good “go up” [in birth]. I also don’t believe in the  “father” god or the “mother” earth. I believe that, as humans, we have to grow up and take responsibility. Also, and I’ll be honest, I have a particular problem with any representation of “god” as some punishing sociopath  who forcibly isolates, confines, shames, and then mutilates and burns his own children just for making a mistake, but whatever.  I also believe in freedom of belief and I think you can believe whatever you want and teach your children whatever you see fit. So, if you feel its OK to teach your kids that God’s gonna get them, or that the universe is an empty shell devoid of consciousness, or that it is OK to forcibly confine and torture people, go right ahead. Just keep my children out of it, and don’t punish them for believing something different.

So, the question a lot of you reading must be asking now is, why I am saying this? Well, let me tell you.  This morning I learned that my children are going to be forcibly excluded and stigmatized [read story] because we believe differently than some parents at a recent school board meeting. It doesn’t matter what our beliefs happen to be because nobody cares. It is only important that we don’t believe the same way as those parents at the meeting and for that, my kids are going to have to pay. They are going to be punished, basically.  They are going to taken out of their classroom for a few minutes every morning, excluded from morning observances, and locked away in a room with the other “infidels” where they will all have to struggle with the subtle feelings of dirty shame that are going to result from what a senior panel of Canadian judges ruled way back in 1988 was a discriminatory, exclusive, coercive, and stigmatizing practice that denies fundamental charter rights.

Now, you’d think this would be a problem for the people running the system, but it is not. As Terry Jewell of Sturgeon Country School Division says, this is just the reflection of “parental choice.” After all, democracy rules. And besides, the school lawyers checked some words written in the Alberta Constitution and concluded there was nothing in that that said it was morally wrong, or ethically suspect, to exclude, stigmatize, coerce, and deny fundamental charter rights to our children. So, it is all good.

But honestly, I gotta say, as a parent I’m not a happy camper this morning because now I’m going to have to find another school to send my children to, or I’m going to have to home school them, or maybe set up a charter school outside the system, or perhaps drop them off at school a few minutes late every morning because frankly, I’m not going to expose my kids to reoccurring  “morning abuse.” I want them to grow up healthy and feeling good about themselves, I want them to show respect for others and their beliefs (even if they think they are wrong), and I never, ever, ever want them to think its OK to take people who are different in any way and forcibly isolate and exclude because, as the research demonstrates, that hurts. And if you think I’m over reacting, check out this UCLA MRI Stud that demonstrates that social exclusion and isolation is experienced in the brain in exactly the same way that physical pain is. I mean, as a parent, would you want your kids poked in the eye first thing every morning at school?

p.s.

If you happen to be a parent in St. Albert, Alberta, and your kids go to Sturgeon Heights School, and you want to explore some alternatives (like pooling resources and hiring a lawyer, thinking about a home school program, or a car pool that drops the kids off a few minutes late in the morning, or a charter school), contact us.

Discussion Questions.

• What is the nature of democracy? Does democracy presume tolerance and inclusion>
• What are the psychological and emotional consequences of exclusion? What do children learn when the authority figures cart them off from their peers and isolate them by themselves?
• Do children have charter rights and is majority rule a justification for denial of charter rights?
• Discuss what you believe to be the psychological and emotional consequences to exclusion, discrimination, and coercion. Do you have personal experiences? Share them.

No one is better place to examine these crucial questions than Hamid Dabashi. Acclaimed scholar, critic and cultural observer, Dabashi has an intimate knowledge of the region, its geopolitics, history and societies, and the interpretive power to see clearly into the face of the revolution.

By examining the causes, actions and outcomes of the Arab Spring in its many different locations, Dabashi predicts that the Arab Spring heralds no less than the end of postcolonialism. He sees the possibility of a new world order, a new international understanding, and a new social and cultural awareness – the true end to the oppressive colonial mindset which has weighed so unrelentingly over post-war international relations.

Dabashi believes that the power and force of the actions and vocabulary of those who have risen up as part of The Arab Spring are new. They are a calling card for change – real change, not just the replacement of one oppressive regime by another. More than that, they are a signifier of a new language of understanding, of expectation, of hope for the marginalised, ‘orientalised’ people of the world – a language of equality.

This, argues Dabashi, is what The Arab Spring will come to mean for us all.

…

‘Dabashi provides a revolutionary, imaginative and open-ended reading of what will turn out to be a founding moment of the twenty-first century.’ Fawwaz Traboulsi, author of A History of Modern Lebanon

‘Embracing the poetic justice of the Arab Spring, Hamid Dabashi seizes upon and expresses the lyrical. He recounts philosophically an open-ended non-linear story, which is still in the making.’ Elia Suleiman, filmmaker

The Arab Spring by Hamid Dabashi is published by Zed Books, priced £12.99/$19.95, ISBN 9781780322230, available from 10th May 2012. For more information or to request a bound proof please contact Ruvani de Silva, Publicity Manager at Zed Books on 020 7837 8466 or ruvani.de_silva@zedbooks.net http://www.zedbooks.co.uk/paperback/

Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Indigenous Studies Research Network, Queensland University of Technology, and Deputy Chair, Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council

‘Thirteen years of influence later, with updates and additional chapters, the second edition will secure and expand the place of this book as a classic in articulating the field of indigenous methodologies, “talking back” to imperialist research and building capacity in indigenous communities.’

Professor Patti Lather, Ohio State University

‘In its first edition, Decolonizing Methodologies claimed space for Indigenous research through critiquing western knowledge creation as a monocultural enterprise and by affirming Indigenous knowledge systems in research practice. In its second edition, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, the preeminent voice in decolonizing research, considers the current landscape of Indigenous research — its complexities, intersections, and transformative potential — from the position of someone who has been there. Decolonizing Methodologies remains persuasive, evocative, and enduring.’

Margaret Kovach, Assistant Professor, Educational Foundations/Educational Administration, University of Saskatchewan

‘Linda Tuhiwai Smith encourages and challenges those involved in indigenous research to “get the story right and tell the story well”.  In this revised edition of Decolonizing Methodologies, Smith shows us how to get the story right and how to tell it well in thoughtful, thought-provoking, and inspiring ways. Indigenous research demands no less.’

Jo-ann Archibald, Associate Dean for Indigenous Education, University of British Columbia

To the colonized, the term ‘research’ is conflated with European colonialism; the ways in which academic research has been implicated in the throes of imperialism remains a painful memory. This essential volume explores intersections of imperialism and research – specifically, the ways in which imperialism is embedded in disciplines of knowledge and tradition as ‘regimes of truth.’ Concepts such as ‘discovery’ and ‘claiming’ are discussed and an argument presented that the decolonization of research methods will help to reclaim control over indigenous ways of knowing and being.

Now in its eagerly awaited second edition, this bestselling book has been substantially revised, with new case-studies and examples and important additions on new indigenous literature, the role of research in indigenous struggles for social justice, which brings this essential volume urgently up-to-date.

Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples
by Linda Tuhiwai Smith is published by
Zed Books,

priced £18.99/$34.95, ISBN 9781848139503.

For more information or to request a review copy please contact Ruvani de Silva on 020 7837 8466 or ruvani.de_silva@zedbooks.net.

On Thursday, April 19, 2012, the Los Angeles Times published photos of US soldiers posing with body parts of Afghans that they had killed. War may be hell, but sometimes it is also an expression of pure stupidity.

A long time ago, on October 7, 2001, the US began dropping bombs on Afghanistan. Those aggressions were a response to the 9/11 attacks that had been masterminded by a condemnable horde of terrorists who were holed up in the Hindu Kush Mountains in Afghanistan. As such, Operation Enduring Freedom, as the military campaign was originally titled by President George W. Bush, proceeded under a legitimate—if not altogether trouble-free—mantle of moral authority.

As of 2001, the US was clearly the aggrieved party. The terrorists had struck first, and Operation Enduring Freedom could be characterized as a measured and appropriate response to an unwarranted act of atrocious aggression.

That was then. In the long years since the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom, endless miscues have transformed the mission in Afghanistan from unprecedented early success into America’s longest and, increasingly, messiest war. In the weeks following the launch of Enduring Freedom, the US bombing campaign seemed to be making a mockery of the ancient truism that Afghanistan was the Graveyard of Empires. Where previous would-be conquerors, from Alexander the Great all the way to the Soviet Union, had gotten bogged down in interminable, unwinnable struggles, Operation Enduring Freedom swept the Taliban and al Qaeda out of their mountain strongholds like so much dust before a broom.

The initial bombing campaign ended in a matter of weeks as the US succeeded in securing control over all strategic cities and territories within Afghanistan.  Further, this military lightning strike enabled the US to install a new government, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that was headed by a democratically-elected leader, Hamid Karzai.

By 2004, it appeared as though the US mission in Afghanistan had been all but accomplished. Except for a bit of mopping up, it seemed as though the US was poised to transfer control of Afghanistan to its newly-elected leader. In practically every respect, Operation Enduring Freedom could be characterized as monumental success.

Then, foolishly, the Bush Administration shifted its focus to Iraq. Don’t get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a deplorable human being, however, if we employ that criteria as a justification for deposing world leaders, then the US would be obliged to topple practically every government on the planet. I wonder if Dubya was acquainted with the old adage, “People in glass houses…”

Anyway, as the US shifted its focus to Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan went from “under control” to “unwinnable quagmire.” In the end, Operation Enduring Freedom succeeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

What a waste.

Once having lost the opportunity to secure a lasting peace in Afghanistan, the US military effort has become bogged down in the Graveyard of Empires. At best—and in spite of occasional military surges—the endless US mission could be characterized as an exercise in treading water. At worst, the US military has succumbed to a collective case of post-traumatic stress disorder. In recent months, the US has gone from the PR disaster of burning Qurans, to Sergeant Robert Bales’ mass murder of Afghanistan civilians, to yesterday’s news of troops mugging for cameras with their gruesome trophies.

The only explanation is that, after long ago having lost its moral compass, the US mission in Afghanistan has completely lost its grip on reality. In short, the US war in Afghanistan has gone insane. This, I believe, is why it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince ourselves—much less the Afghans—that the US mission in Afghanistan is capable of achieving any worthwhile goals.

Apart from ravaging our troops and the Afghan people with intensifying cases of PTSD, what are we accomplishing in Afghanistan? Further, what can we hope to accomplish when every step that we take carries us further into our collective insanity. An insane process cannot produce a rational outcome. The only solution is to end the insanity.

The war in Afghanistan must end. And the sooner, the better.

Still, the idea that any US President would be required to flash his ID in order to legitimize his presidency represents a monumental presumption on the part of Obama’s detractors. Please understand, I’m not suggesting that we should treat US presidents like sacred cows. Far from it. Presidents are simply regular folks who have found some way to percolate to the top of the national political hierarchy. As such, being as fallible as anyone else, presidents must be held accountable. This means that presidents should be praised for their successes and castigated for their mistakes. Nothing helps to ensure a higher standard of leadership than exacting public scrutiny. The more, the better.

That said, the campaign to paint Obama as an undocumented alien deviates dramatically from the rational road of constructive political criticism. Birthers’ shrill protestations are not intended to help Barack Obama become a more effective president, rather, their goal is to invalidate our forty-fourth president’s mandate: Barack the Pretender, an “other” who lacks the birthright to legitimately occupy the lofty office that he has claimed.
Clearly, this claptrap is born of the same spirit that perpetuated Jim Crow well into the twentieth century. In the past, US presidents have never been asked to produce proof of citizenship because, quite simply, they were all a bunch of white guys. And, since white guys have been running the world for a long time, it just seems natural for white guys to continue doing so.

Then, along comes Barack Obama, a president who doesn’t quite fit the Mount Rushmore image. Heaven forfend!! Yet, by any measure, Barack Obama is a brilliant political strategist who, in spite of his humble origins, managed to rise meteorically to the very apex of the US political establishment. Certainly, there have been similar rags-to-riches success stories among US presidents and, like Abraham Lincoln, path-breaking political leaders of this stripe tend to be graced with exceptional talent. For example, does anyone recall that George W. Bush dumped the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression on his successor? Though it required a herculean effort, President Obama managed to prevent the worst extremes of that particular crisis: a decade of 20-30% unemployment with Hoovervilles, hunger and every other form of economic hardship stalking the land. Instead, the Obama Administration succeeded in getting the country back on its feet again before the midterm elections. Truly, an historic feat of economic wizardry.

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. Since Obama’s detractors can’t attack him on his record, they’ve had to search for other, more devious means with which to besmirch his character. Thus, stooping about as low as a snake in the grass can go, birthers have raked up the deplorable muck of American racism. None too subtly, birthers have asserted that because Obama doesn’t fit the demographic profile of a typical American president, Obama can’t really be the president.

Well, I must admit that birthers and I are in agreement on one particular point: Obama is not a typical US president. He’s a heck of a lot smarter than most.*

Obama may not be typical, but I’m happy to say that his is the new face of America, the Land of Opportunity. Birthers may not like it, but Obama’s ascendancy is an illustration of the fact that democracy is not dead. Though democracy will ever and always remain a work in progress, under Obama’s leadership the US has narrowed the gap between our democratic principles and practices. Would that we could say as much about all US Presidents.

*The other post-millennial president leaps to mind here.

Howard Fine explains, “Fees for checked luggage haven’t really worked. Sure, passengers are checking in fewer bags, but now they are carrying-on a lot more luggage. It’s sort of a game of chess. Airlines make one move, and hen passengers make the next, but in the end the airlines are still carrying the same amount of weight.”

When questioned about Allegiant Air’s new plan to charge for carry-on baggage, Howard Fine commented, “Passengers aren’t going to like it, and I don’t blame them. Carry-on fees seem punitive. It’s like passengers figured out how to get around the checked luggage fee, and now they are being punished by Allegiant for being savvy consumers.”

Yet, Fine remains confident that passengers will view Universal Airline’s plan to charge by weight differently, “Carry-on fees are punitive, but charging by weight is actually beneficial.” When asked to elaborate, Fine added, “Well, it’s simple really. Passengers who weigh less will pay less.”

It remains to be seen whether passengers will react positively to Universal Airline’s plan to charge by weight. However, for his part, Howard Fine remains upbeat, “If you think about it, it’s kind of like Universal is creating an incentive for passengers to be fit and trim. In a sense, we’re creating a health plan for our passengers.”

The perspective I present in this article, is an amalgamation of the neoclassical notion of the rational and self-interested human being and Folbre and England’s notion of altruism as inherent (or at least emergent) in the development of capabilities. I do this to engage in a discussion on developing an educational policy applicable in an Equal Money System that is based on what is best for all. From this it is my aim to investigate what basic capabilities are to develop ourselves as human beings to a point of utmost support for our own well-being and for the well-being of all. I will go through the capabilities as they are described by Folbre and England and consequently discuss these in relation to an Equal Money System.

Let’s first have a look at what Folbre and England’s definition of capabilities:

A capability is a state that requires effort from the individual. It requires to be developed and enables one to function effectively in society, once applied and implemented. Capabilities are beneficial both for the individual and for the collective well-being. Folbre and England describe four different types of capabilities: physical, cognitive, self-regulating and caring capabilities.

Capabilities

Physical Capabilities

The physical capabilities are the basic physical requirements for caring physically for oneself, such as cooking food, getting dressed, cleaning the house, knowing when to respond to pain etc. However with these basic physical functioning capabilities, Folbre and England contends that they are often not discussed or emphasized (in social science or in economy) and suggests that this can be because of the tradition in this of valuing “mind over matter” in these traditions ranging back to a focus on the metaphysical . (C.F Descartes famous quote: “I think, therefore I am”.) [i]

Cognitive Capabilities

Cognitive capabilities include what is considered “formal education” that according to Folbre and England has an extensive impact on one’s income earning abilities. Besides these capabilities that is achieved through education, such as reading, writing and math, Folbre and England describe capabilities such as house hold economy, the ability to see the cause and effect of one’s actions and points such as mental health and emotions as part of the cognitive capabilities.

Self-Regulation Capabilities

Self-Regulation capabilities are based on the ability to have self-discipline and Folbre and England suggests that this capability is the basis for the other capabilities, because without self-discipline, one is not capable to develop for example the ability to write. When self-discipline is developed one becomes able to perform tasks that one does not necessarily want to do or experience as difficult. Folbre and England suggest that self-regulation as a capability is not valued by economics as a human capital because economic theory would define self-regulation as a preference and not as a skill. Instead Folbre and England contends that self-regulation in fact is both a skill and a preference and they mention how becoming skilled and enjoying oneself once skilled mutually constitutes.

Care Capabilities

How are capabilities developed?

In Human Capital theory, capital is considered a “stock” as a long-lasting transformation of the human that focuses on self-investment within the definition of investment as “present cause for later pay-off”. Folbre and England however introduces the notion of “input” instead of investment and uses the transference of capabilities between parents and children as an example for why this is. This is then also used to argue for the notion of altruism in the caring capabilities, where parents act in supporting ways for the child to benefit, without getting anything out of it themselves. They are teaching the children skills that the children will use independently of the parents.

Why are capabilities important for society?

Folbre and England contends that capabilities are dependent on social embeddedness and as such exists as a social capital. They claim that as well new as traditional economics “underestimated the social and political nature that effects which children will have their capabilities developed the most” and that as such that “resource constraints should not be ignored.” What this means is that an assumption in neoclassical economic thinking (that which our world systems are based upon) is that everyone intrinsically have ‘equal opportunities’ to develop skills and capabilities. Folbre and England highlights the fact that the conditions we are born into determines to an utmost extend what opportunities we have to learn and develop skills and capabilities. These conditions are created through a political and financial system that in turn is created by us as human beings. Who and what we live as human beings is something we decide individually and collectively interdependent. The same goes for the capabilities that we support the development of, in ourselves, in our children and in society as a whole.

It is a Matter of stopping the Mind

For a long time physical work has been disregarded as “crude” and “simple”. This is reflected in how people that primarily work with the physical receive a much lower wage than those working in (and as) “mind-jobs”. When our children are sent to school, one of the primary points they are too learn, is to disconnect the mind from the body and use the body as a tool for the mind to expand, for example in sitting still and listening to the teacher and suppress the body’s urge to jump or sing or move. In all educational policies, it is thus the cognitive capabilities that are prioritized which can be seen in how all forms of craft classes and sports are minimized and cut back. But if we look at what it is the children are learning about the world, that which they are supposed to learn, to enable themselves to live as effective human beings, it is all in the head. They are expected to grow up and direct their physical world and reality, from within and as the mind, while the body remains a mere vehicle, a tool. In very few schools do children learn about their own bodies or how their bodies feel.They do not learn how to cook, clean or care for animals.

They do not (at least not effectively) learn how to interact with nature, with animals or with the bodies of other children and adults. Instead they learn to disconnect themselves from the physical, to use the body for competitive sports or transportation and as they grow up, they are expected to know how to move and care for their bodies, without actually being in (contact with) their bodies. They might learn about health regimes and that milk is good for you, but they don’t learn to feel in their stomach when some food is not supportive for them. They do not learn to touch or support themselves or each other in ways to alleviate pain or simply for enjoyment. We can draw a straight line from how the physical is disregarded in the current education system to how the state the world currently is in. What thrives is mind-based designs and constructs at the expense of the physical world – the real world – in which and as we live and which we cannot live without. The aspect of physical functioning thus reaches beyond learning basic skills of buttoning buttons – it involves caring for the entire planet as well as for ourselves and each other. A Destonian perspective on education will thus focus exactly on the physical, on us getting out of our heads and into the physical to actually learn to care and nurture ourselves, our bodies and the planet.

Learning is not fun in a capitalistic system

According to Folbre and England, self-regulation and discipline is both a preference and a skill. It becomes a preference when we discover the joy of completing a task or in learning something new. But as education is designed in the current system, a sole emphasis is on the skill aspect of self-discipline, where we are skilling ourselves to be able to compete with others on an unstable job market. The competition is based on fear of not survival and in many countries that is what enables children to remain disciplined – not because they are enjoying what they are learning or perfecting themselves within it. Furthermore, the way education systems are designed, children and adults are most often running on tight deadlines where text books have to be consumed with the speed of light and there is absolutely no focus on disciplining oneself for the sake of self-enjoyment. Furthermore: those of us who has had teachers that enjoyed teaching and teachers that did not, know that there is a lot more to learn from a teacher that enjoys what they are doing. But how can we expect teachers to enjoy themselves, when they get placed close to nothing and are stuffed into a small room with 40-60 students, disconnected and high on sugar and an old curriculum to teach from?

A Destonian perspective is that learning is about expanding and exploring oneself, alone and together with others – teaching is about standing as a living example, not a regurgitator of indoctrinating brainwash that only has the purpose of creating stupid obedient consumer slaves. Furthermore: learning is physical and education, both physical and cognitive could be developed in a variety of ways that incorporate physical learning – if only the focus was on developing capabilities that are best for all as well as the individual in a setting that is not based on fear of not surviving, but instead on self-expression, dedication and openness. If self-discipline is taught without self-consideration or direction, we educate followers that will create secret inner lives where they can live out their desires, we create workers that only do exactly as much as they have to for then to go home and leave the rest to someone else – instead we can educate ourselves (and the children) to develop a self-discipline that is based on dignity, on self-integrity and on doing what is best for all, simply in seeing the basic common sense in that principle – because the world-systems are based on equality.

Caring is Equal Money For all

A mentioned by Folbre and England, the caring sector is highly underpaid compared to occupations that favor cognitive capabilities. This includes teachers, nurses and all other professions where it is the care for other humans (and animals) that is the primary work function. What this means is that Care in itself is highly under-prioritized in our societies, something that can clearly be seen in the many cases of negligence and lack of funding in many care facilities. We are as a species underdeveloped in our ability to care for others (as well as ourselves and the planet). Care as a capability is furthermore a physical act, that one can do even if one does not get something out of it – this is also why there are still people volunteering and working in these positions even though they get no or little pay for their work. Obviously there is in this, a dimension of self-interest, in that a person in a care position can get something out of defining themselves as ‘carers’, something we shall come back to. However there are also people who place themselves in such positions, because they can see that it is of benefit for the group or individual they are working with or because they can see that it is best for all.

We live in a world that does not prioritize what is best for all – that in fact demotes the people who work for what is best for all, and as such stand in direct opposition to creating a world (and an education system) that is best for all. By implementing an Equal Money System that in fact is Best for All, caring will be a basic fundamental priority as it is embedded directly into the very notion of what is Best for All and in the practical policies developed therewith. Another important point here to mention is that care work traditionally has been women’s work. And in that is thus also an intrinsic degradation of women, instead promoting only a patriarchal system that emphasizes traditional masculine values (note: not the values of males) that essentially is based on competition and war. By bringing caring into the forefront of a political and economic (and educational) system, we can no longer deny or ignore the suffering of others. We can no longer justify the exploitation of some for benefit of others. We can no longer push and pressure ourselves to only excel and not consider the consequences of our thrusting through the earth. Finally we no longer need to compete, deceive and fight each other to survive.

Altruism and Self-Interest

Folbre and England mentions that children begin developing capabilities even before such a point as “self-investment” even emerges. In this, adults are required that are able to act in ways that are not based on self-interest with then as mentioned conflicts with the rationality of neoclassical economy. A critical (Destonian) perspective on this is that when parents support children to develop specific capabilities, they are in fact acting in self-interest as they see the children as reflections of themselves; thus how ‘successful’ the children become, will reflect back on the parents as ‘successful parents’ and as such ‘successful individuals’.

This shows how altruism is difficult to apply and questions whether such an application is even possible. According to the neoclassical economists, it is not. In relation to care work Folbre and England emphasizes this capability as one that benefits all and as such is best for all. Within this they bring up an interesting perspective, that there perhaps are other ways to make care work more valuable for society and in this they wish to challenge neoclassical definitions of human capital. Instead they suggest collective strategies for example within using taxes or policies to create inputs that emphasizes care as a capability.

Humans self-interested by nature but that does not mean we cannot educate ourselves to change

Neither acknowledging altruism as inherent (or at least emergent in how parents support their children to develop capabilities) or in the neoclassical theory of rational self-interest is common sense applied.

Therefore an amalgamating perspective is required in an understanding that in spite of self-interest being pre-dominant in human beings, policies and education (as developing skills and capabilities) can be applied to support the development of capabilities currently defined as ‘altruism’ and ‘care’, without expecting that parents do this because of some innate altruism. Through basing policies on principles that are created to implement solutions that are best for all, will support an actual emergence of altruism. In this, if all live in a way that is best for all, an application such as altruism will not even exist, as it exists directly in opposition to ‘self-interest’. If all are educated, skilled and capable of supporting what is best for all, practically speaking, the concept of altruism will be redundant.

In the development of an Equal Money System, we are researching and developing policies based on the practical and physical capabilities that each human being requires to live a dignified life and the implementations of such policies in our society, based on what is Best for All at a practical, physical level. It is open for anyone to participate, who are willing an interested in creating a world, where children can thrive and learn how to support themselves and the earth to live a life of self-expression, dignity, care and enjoyment – a life that in all ways will be best for all. Join us at the Equal Money Forum, on the Destonians Network, join the Desteni Group on YouTube and Facebook and partake in making this Earth a heaven for the Children to come.

“The Equal Money System have as Goal to Educate prospective parents with the skills and understanding necessary BEFORE a child is Born to make sure that the Child have every opportunity of an excellent Life and the required Base foundation as example of what it means to give as you would receive with a dedication to care for Life in all ways. We are what we are taught form Birth and changing our Beginning Here will change Human Nature. We all know this, yet we continue to ignore what can be changed” Bernard Poolman

[i] As a critique of Folbre and England’s theory, I suggest considering the emerging trends in sociology of sociology of body and sociology of sports. Because the paper is written in 1997, a certain progression in development of the field must be taken into account, but it is interesting to consider that there in fact has been some movement on this point in social science.

The Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, Socratic irony, or Socratic debate), named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one participant may lead another to contradict him in some way, strengthening the inquirer’s own point.

It you ask me, elenchus is the core of academics. Elenchus is the ostensible point of scholarly publication in journals, where scholars put their ideas “to the test,” run them through “the mill,” or otherwise try and engage other scholars in debate. The result is that science “moves forward” towards ever greater understanding of the world. It doesn’t always work that way, of course, since scholarly publication is corrupted, biased, and favours the status quo, rather than original thought, but the idea is there anyway. Put your ideas out there and get people to try and refute them.

Besides being an important aspect of professional scholarly communication, elenchus is also the goal of The Soc journ. The idea is to get scholars from various disciplines to put their ideas “out there” so that they can engage with students, scholars, and teachers, in public Socratic debate. The benefits would be mutual. The public gets an education, the professor or initiate (PhD student, M.A. student), gets to hone their academic skills,  and ideas become stronger in the scholarly forge. This is an idea that, I have to say, isn’t often met within the boundaries of universities; but in the age of modern communication technology an opportunity presents itself to return to forms of scholarship and communication that emphasized public discussion, dialogue, and education. This isn’t the same as things like “Psychology Today” where scholars talk at the public. This is scholars engaging with the public, in Socratic debate, as public (nay global) educators,

Alpha Male or common bully?

Growing up as a small boy in a rinky-dink Canadian town, I was  tortured a lot. Part of the problem, I think, was I always small and undernourished for my age, weak, and an easy target. Not surprisingly, I was targeted a lot, bullied really, by students and teachers. In almost every year of my Catholic education past the grade of five, I have memories of shit and abuse heaped upon me by all those in my life who were stronger than I, which pretty much amounted to just about everybody.

But my small and timid stature was not the real cause of my abuse. Psychologically and sociologically,  the people doing the bullying were probably victims themselves. It is common psychological wisdom–shit and abuse tends to travel downhill and settle on the weakest and since I was one of the weakest it only made sense that the horror that others had experienced, or were currently experiencing, should settle on my weak  shoulders.  Perpetrators, once victims themselves, often follow the path of reduced cost.

But again, that is not the whole story of course. I can certainly envision a society where victims are not left to “take it out” on those who are weakest. I can envision a social order where the weak are protected and nurtured so that they become strong and mighty, and not pummeled just to prove a point. When we added our most recent animal friend Frodo to our family (a rottweiler cross), he was the runt of the litter. But we heaped him with love, cuddling, and attention, fed him good food, and now he’s a friendly giant, much bigger, I imagine, than others in the  litter he emerged from.

So why on this world do we beat the weak ones down?

Well, that’s ideological, archetypal really.

It is what we are taught, with words and by example.

“It is survival of the fittest,” don’t you know.

“The strong rise to the top and  weak are pummeled into submission.”

Give the gold stars, the love, and top rewards to the “winners” and screw the losers into the ground!

It is true, it is true!

Just the other day I was talking to an individual who was telling me that it was cool for two guys to get together and pound each other out because, well, that’s what males do as they sort themselves into some imagined “natural” hierarchy.  Life’s a struggle for survival and it is it in our genetic code don’t ya know. The strong “alphas” dominate the weak, we vie for our position in “the hierarchy,” and that’s just the way it is.

It is natural and inevitable, ordained and condoned!

Isn’t that true?

Aren’t we all familiar with these ideas?

This whole idea that “life is a struggle and only the strong shall thrive” is part of the common intellectual heritage of our planet and we find this ideology everywhere. We find it the social sciences where Herbert Spencer said “survival of the fittest” (Darwin of course never said that). We find it in science which teaches us about alpha males and the domination of the weak by the strong. We even find it in religions, spiritualities, and the esoteric”boys” clubs that dot the power grid of this planet where we learn that life is a struggle between good and evil (good being the stronger of the two).

Don’t ya see?

God dukes it out with Satan and we, poor imperfect little human stick pigs, are stuck in the middle, asked to choose a side, and told to prove ourselves worthy and strong else we should be  subjected to eternal torture in the fires of damnation.

It was kinda like what I experienced as a child. Life as a struggle with winners and losers (winners being defined as “good and losers being thrown out in the trash). It is a fight  sanctioned by Mother (Gaia) and approved of by Father (God).

But is it true?

Is it natural?

Is Papa God really all about the fight?

Does Mama earth really crush the weak ones out of genetic existence?

Do alpha males really dominate the weak?

Well no, it is not like that. We believe the nonsense because of our religious or scientific indoctrination; however, it is not, in fact, true. It is ideological, archetypal, and fallacious. Indeed, science is just beginning to unravel its own bullhit statements in this area.

Check this out, for example. Here is the scientist who coined the term “Alpha Male” admitting he was wrong!

Have a listen.

The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,” written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book’s info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. “Alpha” implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today, the “breeding male,” “breeding female,” or “male parent,” “female parent,” or the “adult male” or “adult female.” In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the “dominant breeder” can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a “subordinate breeder.”

A Social Prison

Now isn’t that interesting. According to the guy who coined the term, there really is no such thing as an “alpha male.” There’s a successful mom, and a successful dad, and they both hang around looking after “the pack,” but that’s about as far as it goes.  That whole alpha male thing, well that’s an aberration, really, a pathology that only emerges when we (and by “we” I mean male scientists)  take the male wolves away from their families so that we can experiment on them at our convenience. When you “imprison” them in this fashion, then you get this unnatural behaviour. As one commentator notes,  ”Apparently a fair amount of the original support for the alpha concept came from studying groups of captured, unrelated wolves.  Mech allows that in such circumstances wolves will sort themselves into hierarchies, but that those circumstances hardly ever obtain outside captivity. What he doesn’t say, but that suggests itself, is how similar this is to what happens in a human prison.” (Ref)

The bottom line?

Alpha male behaviours are unnatural, at least according to Mech who says that you almost never find the physical conditions in the natural world that cause the aberrant, aggressive, and dominating behaviour of the “alpha male.”

Archetypes

Natural Male Behaviours

So what’s up with this whole idea of alpha male? Well despite’s Mech attempt to attribute the whole alpha male mistake to a methodological foofaraw, I’m not buying it. The problem is the “alpha male” idea, from a sociological perspective, is ideological (for a course based discussion of ideology, see the second part of my introductory course Sociology 288). That is, it is not an innocent idea. It is, in fact, a justification. It is an archetype (or rather part of an archetypal constellation) that justifies the abuse of others, typically for personal gain. If a boy pummels another boy in the school yard, well that’s just what young males do (I can’t count how many times have I heard that as a parent, from other parents, teachers, and even principles in schools).  If a business man crushes some other business out of existence (perhaps throwing an entire family into poverty), he’s just doing what comes naturally. If a country invades another and takes their oil, well that’s just the way the world works. The strong pummel the weak, the alphas beat up on the betas, and the “cream” rises to the top and we should just stand aside and let it all happen because, well, that’s the way the world works. It is the alpha male thing and we’ve been doing it since our ape ancestors descended from the treetops. It is all part of a naturally evolving, divinely sanctioned, predatorial world order.

Ya right. Clearly, and as scientists and others begin to unravel their own  indoctrination, the archetypal house of cards is beginning to crumble. There is nothing genetic, evolutionary, or divine about aggressively dominating another living being. It’s just an excuse the violent bullies use to justify “taking it out” on those who are weaker.

Discussion/Comment Questions

1. What other examples of “ideological dogma passed off as scientific truth” can you come up with. What about the early work of anthropologists and archeologists (before females were allowed to enter universities), compared to the work now.
2. What are implications of this, for gender stereotypes, for the capitalist system (which is all about the domination of the “alpha” male),  and for those who justify bullying, brutish behaviour by reference to animal world?