Sammy's Dot

Having (finally) slogged through both Risk Society and Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk, I think I’ve settled my thoughts about Ulrich Beck and his contribution to the contemporary environmental movement.

His point, that modernization leads to increased risks as a consequence of modern activity, and that those risks spur ever more attempts to fix the problems through technology, makes sense. One issue I take with Beck’s notion of “risk society” is that he attempts to argue that social problems and upheaval will result from “reflexive modernization”. I don’t find his case that there will be significant societal consequences arising from genetic engineering convincing, due to the lack of data discussed in my previous post on the books.

However, Beck’s belief that the lack of clear responsibility for any harm that may be caused by emitters of chemical and radioactive pollution will allow the world as a whole to become a laboratory for the potential environmental consequences seems to me to be more persuasive. As I understand him, though, Beck is arguing that the scientific, naturalistic worldview has become too powerful and too closely linked with capitalist interests. This means that no matter what problems are caused by the (presumably commercial) application of scientific research, science and industry will be able to profit by the damage they create and society as a whole will pay the price. Naomi Klein makes a very similar point in The Shock Doctrine, writing about the defense and security industries and the degree of political influence their leaders have gained. It is here that I think Beck is slightly off-base in his criticisms of the scientific worldview.

It seems to me that Beck is correct that the application of science has led to significant environmental damage, but I disagree that this is a new phenomenon, and the scientific method, unlike earlier explorations into new technology, as Beck himself argues, gives us the ability to examine our past harms and also to extrapolate our future. What we need is greater understanding of the scientific method among a much wider segment of the population, in order to effectively direct science. Beck criticizes the ultra-specialization of the practice of science and its elitist character, but as I understand him, he then argues that to prevent widespread social and environmental damage by these scientific elites, the practice of science itself should be socially limited without much regard for the actual evidence that certain directions for research are inherently risky.

That would limit potential harm, but it would also deprive us of many potential benefits. Of course, as I read Beck, he does not believe that scientific knowledge has led to social and individual benefits. I do accept that we benefit from science, in many ways beyond the wonder of understanding. I’d rather see that understanding expanded across the population, and have as many people as possible be capable of realistic evaluation of the risks posed by scientific research and its applications. Beck and I agree that science can cause problems, but I see the fact that science also contains the tools to fix problems as its great strength, not a reason for mistrust.

The first year that I had my own apartment, stir-fry was one of my two staple foods, but I never ate it the same way twice. That is partly because of my “measurement? what’s that?” attitude toward savoury cooking, but mostly because with all the hundreds of different ways you can sautee vegetables and protein, perhaps with rice or noodles either mixed in directly or serving as a base, why on earth would I want to repeat myself? However, tonight’s stir-fry? I will repeat.

During that same year of the first apartment, I found a jar of cilantro-chili “pesto” that I’ve never seen since and still miss. Tonight, I decided to try to duplicate it, or at least cook up something similar. I threw a bunch of cilantro, a couple of chiles, most of a head of garlic, and some ginger into the food processor, with a few tablespoons of avocado oil and lime juice for moisture. (Incidentally, avocado oil? I’ve been missing out for all but the past week of my life. It makes the best salad dressing I’ve ever had, I think.) Blended all of that into a thick, colourful sauce.

Then I stir-fried up my veggies with a shallot for company, mixed in the sauce and a bit of omelet for protein and coconut rice for starch. read more »

And moreover, how long will Canadians as a whole have to wait for “our” government to explain how it decides who is and is not deserving of its assistance? I think this is a vital question.

Mohamud is thankfully back in Toronto, and the diplomat who labeled her an “impostor” is, apparently, back in Ottawa, but Lawrence Cannon (who has finally emerged from hiding) says that it could take a month for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Travel to determine what happened. Even if they do, he will not guarantee that the results will be made public (via Dr. Dawg’s Blawg).

Bull.

What conceivable reason could there be, Mr. Cannon, to keep those results secret? Do the people of this country not have a right to know what our officials consider to be a “conclusive investigation”, or to know how often “conclusive investigations” are skipped in favour of summarily rendering our citizens stateless?

Somehow, I suspect that the goal right now is to avoid a costly lawsuit that draws negative attention to the Conservative government, and to Harper, Van Loan, and Cannon in particular. I think that the best way to avoid such a lawsuit is to be upfront and open about the results of the investigation, and to offer and immediate apology and compensation. The investigation is needed, both to give Mohamud some peace and to reassure all Canadians that such a situation will not occur again. But it is very clear now that something went gravely wrong at the Canadian High Commission in Kenya, and there is no need for the government to wait for the results of the investigation to acknowledge that.

In addition to Risk Society (Ulrich Beck), I’m working on Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (also by Beck). Both books leave me with the same complaint: give me data!

While Ecological Politics is much more accessible than Risk Society, I think it shows the same method of speculation about the social effects of technology without supporting information. In the first chapter, Beck explores the potential of reproductive technology to fundamentally alter the way humans are born. He is particularly concerned with the way that human embryos (may) become a sort of commodity for researchers, and the results of their research leads to greater and greater levels of medical and scientific intervention into the production of children, and presumably this feeds back into the need to do more genetic research in order to feed this new market.

It’s interesting speculation, but all that it is, is speculation. Beck says that in vitro fertilization is indicated more and more frequently (now that it is possible), but does not offer any statistical information on how many couples are using it (or why!), or how many men are depositing sperm at sperm banks, or how many couples are using ova or sperm from donors because their own is not “good enough”. He certainly does not discuss how many people make use of genetic testing – or why some people might choose to do so, while others do not. In the absence of any data, it seems to me that it is equally, if not more, likely that most couples will continue to produce children in the old-fashioned way, that being easier, cheaper, and usually leading to a perfectly acceptable, if not perfect, baby.

Although there is no doubt that techniques such as sex selection and pre-natal diagnosis for conditions such as Down Syndrome are in use, I do not think that Beck has made the case that they will necessarily lead to more and more deliberate shaping and manipulation of the human species. It is a possibility that should be examined – and in my opinion, applied very cautiously if at all – but Beck has given me no reason to accept that his concerns are valid.

Beck goes on to suggest that the burden of proof of harm has been misplaced, in that scientific researchers are free to explore questions that may impact all of society, while society as a whole, which will have to bear the risks and consequences of that research, does not have the opportunity to question or influence the direction and methodology of the scientific establishment. It’s the precautionary principle, and as an environmental studies geek, I’m sympathetic to the argument. However, though I agree that all scientific research occurs within a social context and certainly effects society, I think that Beck’s argument is undermined by the fact that he complains that we are moving toward an unknown future without stopping to ask what the consequences of our decisions will be, and yet he does not take the opportunity to present data that presumably are already available, if his assertions about the use of reproductive technology are credible.

Perhaps that’s a different book, one devoted to exploring the current and future consequences of scientific research. Nonetheless, I find it hard to accept an argument that there will be fundamental changes to society as a result of applied research without some tangible reasons why. “People will use it because it’s available” or “the medical-economic establishment will market it” is not enough. I think that the precautionary principle should guide research and innovation, but I also think that those of us who advocate it need to use, and encourage everyone to use, existing data to good effect.

It seems like Suaad Hagi Mohamud may still face some undisclosed hurdles to get back to  her home.

According to the Toronto Star,

Nothing in Canadian law stops the government from “picking and choosing” which Canadians it will help and who it will abandon, a former senior diplomat warns.

In the case of Suaad Hagi Mohamud, a Toronto woman who was detained in Kenya for 12 weeks, “overzealous” civil servants chose to abandon her, said former consular services chief Gar Pardy.

What’s worse, he said, is that Ottawa could just say, “`Sorry it happened’ and that’s the end of it” unless somebody ensures there is a “protection of Canadians act.”

That’s outrageous, and I believe it’s clearly true that the levels of support offered to Canadian citizens who are in trouble abroad is widely divergent.

read more »

I’ve been reading Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society: Towards a new modernity over the past few weeks. I have a lot to say about it, but it’s been slow going: I’m not sure if I picked up a particularly awkward translation, or if it’s simply the way sociologists like to write, but picking apart the language has been frustrating.

However, towards the end of the book, I’ve hit on a phrase that I really can’t get past without a brief comment:

“One can argue whether medicine has actually improved the well-being of humanity.” (Beck, 1992, p. 204)

No. No, one really can’t argue about whether medicine has improved the well-being of humanity. One could argue that some medical advances have brought consequences of their own, which I think Beck does. One can certainly argue that the benefits of medicine have been inequitably shared, so that the well-being of some has been improved, but not that of others.

One cannot argue that the possibility of surviving cancer is not an improvement in human well-being. The fact that a diagnosis of diabetes is no longer a death sentence certainly improves well-being. It is a fact that those of us with access to modern medicine can live longer, and often stay active and alert longer, and I would call that a very definite improvement to human well-being. Though these improvements are individual, their social effects are real too: for example, most children in the developed world now grow up without losing a parent or a sibling to  disease. Can it really be suggested that that isn’t a social good?

It’s well worth analyzing the practice of medicine to try to identify where our current knowledge and understanding is inadequate. It’s important that the nature of unintended side effects be studied. It’s certainly necessary to talk about what constitutes an ethical medical practice, and to talk about the social and cultural impact of more people living longer. It’s imperative that we find ways to ensure that everyone, everywhere, has access to decent medicine.

I think it’s hard to have those worthwhile discussions if one starts from the premise that the value of medicine to society is questionable in and of itself.

She is coming home.

However, I won’t be satisfied until I hear something about an apology, and compensation, and preferably a resignation.

I’ve been following the story of Suaad Hagi Mohamud since I first read about her on the Toronto Star in July. It infuriates me.

The short form appears to be: a Somalia-born Canadian citizen, in Kenya to visit her mother, was detained at the Nairobi airport when on her way home to Toronto. Airport security staff felt that she did not ressemble her passport photo, and apparently refused to accept Mohamud’s other identification, including several other pieces of photo ID, and she was not permitted to board her flight; she was held in airport custody for four days and in jail for eight before she was released on bail without travel documents. The Canadian High Commission in Nairobi was contacted.

At this point, in my opinion, events should have gone as follows: the consular officials arrange an interview with Mohamud, ask for references in Canada, and contact those people (it is, as will be described, quite clear that there were people in Canada who could vouch for her identity). Perhaps they examine her identification themselves. Then they help her get home.

Instead, the Canadian officials told the Kenyan authorities that Mohamud was an “imposter”, canceled her passport, and recommended that she be prosecuted; she was charged with fraud.

After the Toronto Star – which, along with the CBC, seems to be one of the few major media sources that has been covering the story at all* – got in contact with Mohamud’s family, including her ex-husband and son, and her work supervisor, among others, and began running articles about her, the government first insisted that she was not who she said she was, then agreed to check her fingerprints against the prints made when she arrived in Canada and made her refugee claim. More delays, and more people came forward in Canada to vouch for Mohamud.Then the Canadian officials said that the prints were no longer on file (“Officials then said they no longer had the file containing Mohamud’s fingerprints, taken during her immigration 10 years ago”, according to the Star. After more stalling, they agreed to a DNA comparison to Mohamud’s son in Canada. However, as of Saturday, “[S]pokespeople for the foreign affairs department and Canada Border Services Agency refused to say if the government would accept DNA tests as proof of identity”.

Our government has been stalling on this matter for two and a half months, while a child in Canada wonders if his mother will come home, and that mother wonders if she will face jail in a foreign country, or have a life to come back to here in Canada. (Incidentally, and disturbingly, no one from the federal government appears to have ever stated that, because people in Canada were asking for their loved one to come home, and they were alleging that the person who said she was that loved one was not, they were looking for her.)

There is no excuse for their stalling, and it must end, now. The results of the DNA test are in. Though DNA does not encode a name, the test results have told us that the woman stranded in Nairobi is the mother of a boy in Canada, whose identity and status as a citizen has also been ascertained. Enough is enough, and the government should recognize that they need to act now. Mohamud and her Canadian lawyer have already had to fight far more than they should have to get government officials to take action on her case, including filing multiple affidavits, providing multiple pieces of identification, and providing numerous references. The Canadian consulate should have new travel documents issued to Mohamud now, and they should pay for an immediate flight back to Toronto.

But the case should not end there. If Canadian citizenship is to mean anything, not one of us should let this go. The Harper government cannot redeem what has been done to Mohamud, and I for one have no doubt at all that it would not have happened to a white woman named Mary Smith.

I want to see a joint statement from both Harper and Lawrence Cannon on the front page of every newspaper in the country tomorrow, acknowledging that Mohamud was treated wrongly. “We wronged you, and we are sorry.” I want to see some indication that the consular officials who decided she was an “imposter” will be fired. Lawrence Cannon should resign from his post as Minister of Foreign Affairs; he is clearly unable to ensure that his department provides appropriate support to Canadian citizens. I want a statement that lays out what they will do in the future to ensure that Canadians in trouble abroad will receive adequate and timely assistance from their government (and without idle speculation from said government that perhaps a hypothesized sister is sharing a Canadian woman’s passport). I want to know how they will ensure that all Canadian citizens, regardless of whether they were born in Canada or are immigrants, regardless of whether they came here as refugees or through the points system, will receive that assistance and support.

I want to know that compensation will be offered to Suaad Hagi Mohamud for the lost time with her son, as well as the lost wages and the money she had to spend to obtain justice from her government for the two and a half months of her ordeal.

Mohamud’s lawyer has said that he will file for a court order to require her to be repatriated tomorrow, if necessary.

The just response is obvious. It shouldn’t take a court order.

*Though Dr. Dawg has, and that’s a blog that I’ll be following.

Since I’ve been thinking about how Facebook is used by the “environmental movement” (a fuzzy term, I’ll concede), I’ve also been thinking a lot about how Facebook is used more generally. What am I doing with it? What are my friends doing with it? And what will our world look like as we become more and more accustomed to a sort of shared stream of consciousness?

I get frustrated with the argument that new social media are going to result in a population that has only superficial knowledge about issues of importance. (I happened to flip through The Dumbest Generation in a bookstore on Saturday; I can’t offer a review because I have not yet read it, but that did seem to be the author’s main point; in other words, it updates Amusing Ourselves to Death.) What we do on sites like Facebook is a choice; our choices are obviously shaped by the medium, but the medium makes it as easy to communicate book recommendations as it does who was at last night’s party. I don’t update my Facebook status terribly often, because microblogging and tweeting strike me as a bit more work than they’re worth, but I like being able to share a little capsule of my thoughts with a much wider group than the circle of friends and family that I see regularly, and I want those thought-capsules to be interesting.

I want that because that’s my life. I can – and do – choose to share what I’m thinking or reading or working on. Many of my friends also share their own ideas, goals, creative activities, political interests. Sometimes these are issues that have wider significance, and sometimes they’re not, but those little capsules can drive all kinds of interesting directions of thought for their readers.

However: what about the stories about teenagers who send each other naked photos and are arrested for possession of child pornography, or kids who upload pictures of their illicit drinking? As a society, I think we’re still adapting to the fact that our lives are increasingly transparent;  the exponential increase in our ability to share information about ourselves and what we do has added new layers of richness to the ways that we interact, but it does reduce privacy as well. (I may blog under a pseudonym, but my Facebook page, after all, uses my real  name.) But what do I want to keep private?

I wouldn’t want my phone number or my address to be widely available to people who don’t know me face to face. I wouldn’t want to post many details about friends or family because I’d be taking away their choice about how present they want to be online. But my thoughts and ideas? I like to be able to share them. I like to know that I’m presenting a face to the world that’s as congruent with how I see myself, and how I try to act, as I can. That means that I try to use Facebook to talk about the things that I think are interesting – good books, important environmental causes, and so forth – as well as to kick ass at Word Twist on a regular basis.

The internet is not going to disappear, no matter how many curmudgeonly people wish it and it’s consequences away. We can learn to adapt to them, though, by thinking about what we do online. Not that it needs to be serious: I love xkcd and cuteoverload and lolcats, and I love coming across bits of the internet that are creative, whimsical, and fun. I also love the fact that Science Blogs exists to create an ongoing conversation between scientists and non-scientists, and that social scientists and lawyers can blog about their professions and ideas, as well as about policy and politics. I love that I can take what I’ve learned and share it. If stupid content exists, then the answer is not to condemn the platform but to create new and better content of one’s own. Social media are part of that, because they’re such a powerful way to share that content.

Of the pictures I got of the heron, this is my favourite.