Our Babies, Ourselves

In her book, Our Babies, Ourselves, Meredith Small drives home how unique Western culture, American culture especially, is in the independance it demands from infants. Being the anthropologist she is there are many stories about how infants are treated in other types of cultures and societies from the present day hunter-gatherer to the urban Japanese household. Most of these cultures are more baby centric than the hospital delivery intervention promoting, daycare loving culture America encourages for the most part. 

     One of her primary points is that while there may be a push toward independance when it comes to the ability to compete in a western job market, babies themselves are much more in the control of evolutionary rather than societal values. She asserts that when it comes to babies we may be providing the best and healthiest environment for them if we listen to some aspects of less advanced cultures. The scientifically proven advantages of breast feeding that many of us have heard already found their way into Small's chapter on the subject. She also posits many possible connections between infant health and co-sleeping, even going to far as to suggest co-sleeping may reduce the risk of SIDS. 

     I think there is something to be said for the creative thinking that American individuality promotes. But I can understand that babies may not yet be ready for that aspect of our culture. After reading this book I have been put face to face with how much my culture affects what I value as a parent. I saw that the neediness of babies is such an affront to our western sensibilities that we actually make things more difficult for ourselves in some ways. Did you realize that only in western modern culture is lack of milk production a major breast feeding problem? Small suggests this may be due to separation at birth, or possibly anxiety on the part of the mother, who often doesn't have a ready support network to aid and encourage her. Small also points to infrequency of feeding as a possible problem, stating that in some cultures babies feed every 15 minutes. 

     So a question becomes how much should we bend culture for the comfort and well being of our babies or do we continue to require them to adjust to our demands? I think most families are struggling to find a happy medium among the loud advice of society and family, their own instinct and the new information science is providing. I think the future will hold interesting compromises for the benefit of our babies. 

Environmentalism as Religion

I love Earth. I think it is a great place to live, especially since I don't know of any other "Class M" planets within a reasonable distance to compare it to if I wanted to escape it. In reality though, I have as cushy a life as I could ask for, and I would love to ensure the same for my children and theirs. So I do care about the environment in the sense that I don't prefer worldwide annihilation within the next few generations. I teach my kids to pick up their trash. We have changed to compact fluorescent bulbs. We fill up the recycle bin. We re-use paper. Taking care of the earth is very nice at that involvement level. Many people worldwide however, have turned environmentalism into something entirely different, however. It would mean little to me if this only affected random far-spread cults. I see this belief system in people I meet daily, however, and I think that this perspective on environmental issues can hurt the earth, and science as a whole. The problem is clearly laid out in Michael Crichton's video, and also in this article by Robert Nelson, and this short blurb from the New York Times

My main point against environmentalism as religion is this: to truly solve a problem as complex as helping the earth to stay clean and life-supporting, we need to be able to pursue solutions that are truly beneficial in every aspect. In its present state, the environmental, sustainable movement, is so ensnarled in popular opinion, politics, and merchandising, that no one can get a clear idea of what is truly helping and what is hurting. Politicians say the right environmental thing so special interest groups will continue to fund them. Grocery stores and construction companies continue to sell high priced alternative items that say they are good for the environment, and people continue to ease their conscience by sacrificing a bit of extra money for what they consider to be the greater good. Maybe they are better for the environment. Where money is involved how can we know for sure? How environmentally conscious a person is has become an easy measure of their value in society. The problem becomes very apparent when huge amounts of money are sunk into technologies that are lovely in theory, but amount to crap in real life. I absolutely think we should be thinking about alternatives to all the fuel we consume, but if solar power in its present state is not a viable alternative we should be allowed to acknowledge that. If we are better off as far as money, pollution and waste is concerned, throwing plastic bottles in a landfill rather than trying to recycle them, or deluding the public into thinking they are being recycled, the environmental religion will not allow us to say so, lest we be black balled and proclaimed planet-haters or something. For science to work well: for real advancements to be made, we must be allowed to speak the truth. We must be allowed to be creative and think of things that would truly help on all levels. I think buying fewer plastic bottles, especially water bottles, would absolutely help the environment on most levels. Recycling them after I use them? I don't know if it is truly viable. Solar power, wind power, hydro power, these are all very nice thoughts, and they are all very good ideas, and in certain circumstances, like Hoover Dam, for instance, they work very well, but for these great ideas to be brought about into truly useful technologies we must be able to be honest. Solar and wind power are really in their infancy, and a lot of work will need to go into making them truly useful on the large scale. Possibly so much work that we would be better off trying to make the electronic devices we use more efficient first.

The truth is at stake if we believe every banana peel we put in the compost bin will save the earth. The truth is what will lead to real solutions, and no dogmatic, organized, unquestioning group of people will ever be able to absorb the sometimes messy, unbecoming, contradictory things that surface when one truly wants to know the truth. No religion likes too many questions, and without hard questions we won't get real answers.

The Culture of Our Discontent

I loved many insights made in this book. As with many conclusions that are drawn from information gained in the fields of evolutionary biology and anthropology, I do not assume that all of the information presented in this book is law. I see the information gained here as a smattering of fact presented in conjunction with common sense conclusions, and the author's bias. It helps my opinion of the book that I agree with many of the conclusions the author has drawn. She brings attention to the lack of real evidence we have that the Western way we treat mental illness is working. She questions the use of drugs in many scenarios, but I believe has a realistic respect for the undeniable aid drugs have given to some who truly need them to function. One of the most interesting points she brings home is that other cultures are worth learning from when it comes to treating mental illness, and even defining it. She calls for those of us in Western culture to drop our arrogance and view even primitive cultures as a source of education about human nature. That outlook, along with the evidence she puts forth made this book a wonderful educational experience for me.



The Following are quotes form the book by Meredith F. Small:


Pg. 127 - Western Culture is no different from any other culture in producing conditions that encourage expression of particular psychologies. We cannot assume that our metal illnesses are all biological - that is, biochemical - while their mental illnesses are all culturally constructed.

Pg. 146
like any good tribe, we have collectively agreed that genes, physiology, biochemistry, and biology are where the answers must lie, even though no one has really demonstrated that our belief system, and our treatments, are any better than poisoning chickens, casting a spell, or trance dancing.

Pg. 149

The author is interviewing Arthur Kleinman, a psychiatrist and medical anthropologist, chairman of the Department of Anthropology at Harvard.

What is missing from both diagnoses, Kleinman feels, is an understanding of how the human mind is entwined with the whole experience of being an individual embedded in a family, a culture, and a society. Mind and body cannot be separated, and both are affected by everything else in life.

pg. 156

The Western medical model of mental illness is dangerous because it is arrogant. We have the best medical facilities, the most sophisticated technologies, and the most comfortable life. Surely we should also be the happiest people on Earth. Yet with all these advantages, it appears that mental illness, especially depression, is ubiquitous in Western culture. By unquestioningly accepting out own belief system, we run the risk of not learning from other cultures that might, in fact, be coping much better.