Contents of E:
I think that one of the defining characteristics of a reigning religion
concerns perspective. When a religion reigns supreme, most people do not even
perceive it as a religion at all. ãBeliefsä are now thought of as
ãtruthsä, and so the religion is just ãthe way the world worksä. As
there is no longer one reigning religion, and our spiritual beliefs collide with
the new religion of science, we donât view religion as the all-encompassing
ãwayä anymore, at least not in the ãmodern worldä. Without doubt there
are small groups of humans whose religion-as-world-view perspective has remained
untouched, but you can bet that ãprogressä will muddle their belief system
in short time.
So if traditional religions no longer define our world-view, does that
mean that we are completely free of religion? Is there no ãrealä religion
anymore, just the fleeting metaphors of the ãold religionsä? Or have other
forms of religion taken hold? What is the religion of ãmodernä humanity? I
suggest that there are several aspects of our collective ãnew religionä, of
which Capitalist Economics is the centerpiece. If you are thinking that
the contention that ãCapitalist Economics is our modern religionä is
absurd, I am not surprised; by my own definition, if economics is our
modern religion, we will not see it as so. Rather, we will see our new economic
religion as the way the world works. And that is exactly how economics
are sold to us, despite being as faith-based as any traditional religion. The Religion
of Capitalist Economics demands faith in something called money; without
this faith, Capitalist Economics cannot function - just like a religion.
Sadly, our economic religion shares some common traits with religions of
old. Portrayed as the way of the world in a manner which obscures its very
human-constructed nature, it is used to justify the dominance of one group of
human beings over another. Just as Kings and Queens of old used religion to rule
over the humanity they called their ãkingdomä, so today do the Emperors of
business cite economics as justification for their dominance. We are no longer
compelled by religious duty to follow the king, but our faith in Capitalist
Economics allows us to justify being wage slaves at the feet of the
business.
If you are still not convinced that Capitalist Economics is our
new national and [possibly] global religion, consider the issue of miracles.
Miracles are those events, mystically influenced, which defy that which is
reasonably possible under normal circumstances. What religion is complete
without its own set of miracles? And in the Religion of Capitalist Economics,
there are miracles aplenty. How else could millions of people work long hours
and receive almost no reward, while a few choice humans do not work at all
whilst enjoying a life replete with rewards? How else could a stockbroker, who
neither provides a service nor produces a product which is of benefit to the
society as a whole, earn more money [the reward of this religion] than the
workers of this world? How else could the environment, inherently its own and
beyond human possession, be parceled out to certain human beings? These are only
a few of the miracles which Capitalist Economics offers.
I want to be free of this religion into which I was born, but my faith
persists, demonstrated through my participation in the rituals of Capitalist
Economics (see Belief). I want out, but they wonât
excommunicate me. Are you as beholden as I?
Waiting for the subway I heard some high squeeking and skwaking noises
that sounded just like a saxophone whoâs owner was biting down on the reed in
such a way as to create sounds not normally heard coming from a sax (not to
mention that these sounds are not only rarely heard, but usually unwanted
altogether). I wandered down the
platform in search of the deviant. I
found a man standing on the platform making some horrific noises on an alto,
much to the chagrin of those people who were being aurally attacked by his
playing. I wandered back to where I
had left my friend to report my findings. After traveling a few stops on the
train, we arrived at the last stop in Manhattan, at which point this sax player
stepped into my car, much to my delight. I
was nearly bouncing out of my seat with anticipation for what he would do and at
the thought that we would travel the width of the East River and then some
before the next stop (a good five to seven minutes). The sax player closed his eyes and began playing a simple and
pretty melody while exhibiting superb control over his instrument. Like most
subway musicians, he was largely ignored by the commuting multitude.
Ignored, that is, until he bit down on that reed and made that sax
screech. Every person on the entire
car cringed. Some stuck their
fingers in their ears, some smiled uncomfortably, some laughed, most stared at
him with deep scorn in their eyes. He switched back and forth from a pretty improvised melody to
the horrific wailing. After several
minutes he stopped and announced to the crowd that unless they were generous
with their donations he would continue playing. Needless to say, a lot of people shelled out for him.
When we finally arrived in Queens he announced that it was our lucky day
because this was his stop. He
stepped off the train and on to another one across the platform.
Several people continued to smile, several more looked around scowling
and hoping that someone would return their scowl so as to affirm their opinion
that the man was a total deviant.
Epistemology,
The Demolition of Wimmin 7
:
Before getting into my oversimplified treatment of a too complicated and
very serious matter, we shall need to have a definition of the word
Îepistemologyâ. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that deals with the
question of what is and isnât knowledge. Now, in a certain sense, all
philosophy makes claims about what is and isnât knowledge, but what makes a
specific inquiry an epistemological one is that it asks how it is that
some ideas are knowledge while other ideas are not. The most general premise,
that our entire scientific society is based on, is that knowledge is all of
those ideas which have been proved to be true by an objective study; that is,
knowledge is comprised of ideas that are true at all times. What in any godâs
name does all this mean? Well, first of all, this general epistemology tells me
that my thinking that I see a UFO is not enough to qualify my idea that there is
a UFO as being a piece of knowledge. Generally, a long process of tests and
verifications must first take place before I can consider any proposition to be
certain and factual; and from these certain and factual propositions we have the
thing called knowledge. If I say ãEating pigs is healthyä, one may take this
to be a proposal of knowledge, based on facts, and obtained through an objective
study in human nutrition. That is, I canât simply announce that eating pigs is
healthy because I sorta like the taste of bacon. This would be, and has long
been, discounted as absurd. So, at bottom, epistemology deals with Îtruthâ
and our methods for determining what is true.
Recently, many feminist philosophers have begun to ask serious
epistemological questions. These questions raise some very compelling concerns
about the prevailing system of epistemology in place in the world today. They
have picked up on something that we usually just take for granted. Even many
epistemological philosophers start from a point that neglects a certain
historical foundation that is always presupposed as the grounds for our
knowledge. It is a simple fact in our common reality that an abused or raped
womyn can go to a therapist or physician to learn about the effects of her
trauma. Also, it is a logical action for a pregnant womyn to seek out a
physician. When it turns out that these experts happen to be male, we do not
immediately assume that they must be unable to provide the care sought after. We
typically assume that a never-raped, never-pregnant male physician, while not
subjectively understanding what it is like to be either of these patients, at
least possesses the broader body of knowledge on such matters. But it is with
this point that we haphazardly gloss over what is a deep epistemological
problem. In the previous sentence it says: ãwhile not subjectively
understanding what it is like to be·ä Notice how this inability of the
doctors to understand their patientâs condition subjectively does not in
any way impede their capacity as doctors! What about this? Why is it that this
particular lack of understanding does not make them any less knowledgeable with
regard to the conditions they treat? Well, one frightening outcome to this kind
of admission would be that male doctors are substandard to female doctors in the
areas of pregnancy, menstruation, breast feeding, etc. We, and more certainly,
the male-dominated medical community, does not want to affirm the idea that
there is a kind of knowledge which can only be had by the one who has or is
capable of having a certain biological situation. But should we deny that any
difference at all exists between the male and female biology? Of course not, and
I donât think that any good doctor does. But what all male doctors must do, to
a very far extent, is assume that these differences in possible experience do
not carry with them a kind of knowledge that matters much in the field of
medical science. I mean, isnât knowledge precisely that which all of us can
know? Yes, that is what knowledge is, but it is that way only because we have
made it so. In many Eastern cultures the subjective understanding of an
experience actually entails a unique brand of exclusive knowledge. Now, that
does not mean that in these Eastern cultures there is no such thing as objective
knowledge. There are both, but the latter is not any bit Îmore legitimateâ
than the former. In fact, often the most prioritized knowledge is the one that
cannot even be spoken about. Feminist epistemologists are not arguing for this
kind of a prioritization, but they do want to know what the hell happened to
subjective knowledge in the Western world! I mean, it keeps making appearances
and trying to exist in our world- but seems to always get beaten down, and then
labeled by some unknown gentlemen an Îold wives taleâ.
My claim here is two-fold. In
the first place, efforts to deem subjective knowledge Îsub-standardâ and
Îillegitimateâ are politically-charged
distortions aimed to preserve the ownership of Îexpertiseâ. Historically,
Îexpertiseâ has not been a free pursuit, as it has been defensively
supervised by those who determined what makes an Îexpertâ an Îexpertâ.
In the second place, and rather ironically, the existence of subjective
knowledge is actually attested to each time we see someone rush over to beat it
down in the name of so-called science. To what degree do the male doctors
understand what itâs like to be pregnant, and to what end has subjective
knowledge been ignored?
Recently, many wimmin have sought the assistance of a dhoula during their
pregnancy and birth. A dhoula is a womyn who has already given birth, and she
uses her subjective knowledge to help a womyn who is going through pregnancy.
The dhoula is qualified to assist the pregnant womyn because she has been
pregnant herself. In this manner, the dhoula represents a marriage of
subjectivity and objectivity- a sign of progression and understanding long
overdue. In other words, to the system designed to provide formal assistance
during pregnancy, the dhoula is an amendment. While she is an inspiring and
invaluable amendment, there are a scarce number of pregnant folk that, having to
choose, would opt to make a co-payment with their insurance company to be led by
new mothers, instead of seasoned, male physicians. It follows from this fact
that weâve gone a frightful distance to distrust, rename, and ignore valid
forms of knowledge.
But who is going to empower and acknowledge what is learned by the
oppressed and marginalized besides the oppressed and marginalized themselves?
Will it be the white sociologist who studies African-American social trends and
wishes to understand them better than those who define them? Or, will it be the
white male doctor who has studied for a decade Îeverything there is to know
about pregnancy?â What about the white male economist who has the most
comprehensive assessment of the Puerto Rican communityâs financial state? Do
we need a Howard Zinn in every natural and social science? Heaven forbid if
something is ever off limits to these fine folks who are concerned with
universal welfare, and· errrrr· maybe universal control?
I, for one, am willing to shut my trap and listen. But it is not going to
be easy. We need to be cautious to not blame an African-American who gets a
little angry that some pseudo-liberal, white Village Voice writer thinks that he
or she has the greatest privilege to talk of racism simply because he or she has
some objective sympathy and a willing publisher. There is an anger on this
planet that simply screams: ãHow the fuck could you know?ä It is a point of
knowledge. This is a highly sensitive issue in our society, because those with
the most power are not interested in delineating spaces for themselves to remain
ignorant in. This is understandable, but perhaps we can turn to ourselves. That
there might actually be realms within which learning is off-limits to us because
of who we are is very frightening indeed. But the world-community is not nearly
as objective as its knowledge is. Many people simply do not know what it is like
to be a privileged person in this society. The fact of the matter is that our
established bodies of knowledge leave out a lot of the things that people know.
This is not a word game, for to write off a subjective history of assessing
health as a history of Îold wives talesâ is as sexist as it is unfair and
inaccurate.
I do anticipate (and I would very much welcome being wrong about this)
that the majority of the people reading this are relatively comfortable white,
men like myself. If I happen to be right, then we need to ask ourselves if we
can admit to an impossibility to access certain types of knowledge while not
considering them to be substandard to our own. I have used a term that is
certainly not overused: ãSubjective Knowledge.ä Introducing it, examining
it, and emphasizing that it refers to legitimate knowledge will not deprive us
of our blessed objectivity. It shall only broaden the scope of possible
knowledge to be had, shared, and contributed to the betterment and understanding
of all people.
We are now a far-post-enlightened civilization. The first scientific
communities that Îenlightenedâ us were comprised wholly of white men... it
was a rule at that time, and one that is still in the process of being broken
for the better. Nobody other than white men were provided with consistent and
extensive formal education, and as a result, everybody else was deemed unfit to
furnish the textbooks of knowledge. We are up against ourselves here, but we
need to try. And this is not any ãwhite manâs burdenä bullshit, since
history has shown us that the whole fucking population is guaranteed to be
burdened for as long as there is the oppression of any group of people. There is
absolutely nothing charitable or self-congratulatory about our efforts, since
there is, already existing, a whole world of knowledge that needs to be
acknowledged.