Five for Friday
Apr. 20th, 2018 07:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lunabee341. I got the most amazing card from shaddyr. It's covered with gemstones! She says I remind her of jewels! *hearts in eyes* Thank you so much, sweetie.
2. The Undergraduate Conference was today, and my students rocked it! Hell, *I* rocked it. Our panel was based on the event/program from last week and our research, and OMG I LOVE THESE STUDENTS! I've been teaching college English for almost twenty years now, and this is the first time I've ever wanted to be friends with students. LOL They are graduating this month, so I hope they take me up on my offer to stay in contact. This has been the most professionally rewarding academic year I've had in a long time.
3. I've got a book review coming out in the September edition of TWC, so I'm excited about that.
4. We're making an offer on a house on Monday. So terrified. So exhilarated. Nausexcited. IDK Such a huge step. This house is perfect. I'm terrified we're not going to get it. I'm terrified we are going to get it and then somehow find ourselves in terrible financial straights. It's so scary. But also, I've felt like we've been in a holding pattern for a couple of years now, and I've been ready to grow and move to the next stage, and this is part of that. Expect more house posts to be forthcoming (either of the devastated variety or of the ecstatic OMG moving and nesting variety). I have no reason to believe it won't go through; it's been on the market for awhile now with no takers. When we went to get preapproved for a loan, we were told we could basically buy anything we wanted; the loan officer said we have old people credit. I mean, my FICO is 802. So, it's going to happen unless something super bizarre goes down. *squeal* I'm going to be relying on y'all for interior decorating advice liek whoa.
5.
The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder by Robert Ardrey
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
The Social Contract has been sitting on our shelf for years; when Josh's grandfather died, we inherited it. Neither of us has read it before.
This is not my area (biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, ethnology); I had one anthro and one socio class each as an undergrad, and I last studied biology in the 11th grade which was, uh, a very long time ago. LOL I'm just not well-versed enough in the subject matter to make real judgments about this book. I did look up Ardrey on Wikipedia, and apparently many of his theories are now accepted; this book, however, is his most controversial as one of its theses is that man is not created equal.
On the surface, I completely agree with Ardrey. I've been teaching college for twenty years now. Seeing that this person is brilliant while this one is dim isn't difficult. Beauty, intelligence, charisma, athletic ability, etc.--all these qualities vary from individual to individual.
But he seems to be arguing for a different kind of inequality that falls uncomfortably down racial and sexual lines. I have to admit that I did not read this book with the sort of attention I might if I thought I'd have to write an essay exam on it although I took perhaps a ridiculous number of notes even so. I freely admit that I don't know enough to figure out where Ardrey is making sound points and where he's jumping the rails. Some parts of it are egregious enough for me to notice; other parts seem perfectly sensible.
Ardrey argues that people are just animals and as such are subject to the same biological imperatives we see play out in the natural world; he thinks that natural, immutable laws which govern our behavior exist. He asserts that humans have no trait unique to us that makes us special in the animal world. One example (among numerous) he uses is elephant recognition of and mourning of death.
In the beginning of the book, he writes that we cannot master nature and that space exploration is just another example of hubris. He sounds very Victorian in a way--modern life is meaningless and anxiety-laden, and science has taken the place of God in our social structure. In fact, he's deeply skeptical about science while also fervently believing in it; basically, he and a handful of people are Doing Science Right, but most psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists are Doing Science Wrong by buying into the idea that all men are created equal. Ardrey says that these disciplines deny the importance of evolutionary biology; fields like evolutionary psychology are new at the time he's writing, but Ardrey seems pretty well on board, and I wouldn't be surprised if this text is now considered to be foundational.
Ardrey argues that poverty, crime and other social ills are the result of us being bored; I find the main thrust of this argument fairly convincing although it's not nuanced enough and doesn't take into account issues like discrimination, the legacy of slavery, the impact of poverty itself on these other activities. He argues that our primary motivation, our primal human drive, is to move to a superior social position if we can. He argues, again convincingly, that the limits of space control an animal species population (and animals control population through suicide, infanticide, contraceptive measures, violence, etc) which means that for Ardrey, those limits also control human populations. He thinks that contraception, abortion, and strict regulations on procreation are measures that humans are going to have to adopt at some point.
One area where Ardrey and I are in complete agreement is when he makes fun of the inaccessibility of academic writing. Why should a scientist write in such a way that her findings are completely inaccessible to the layperson? I will say this for Ardrey: his writing is clear and easy to understand and when I fail to adequately evaluate the merits of his argument, it's because I lack sufficient context and not because I don't get what he's saying. He also writes with a fair amount of humor (even if I don't always find the joke amusing).
His discussion of race disturbs me. He talks about races as if they are different subspecies of human. He argues (using studies that had recently been conducted at the time that show African Americans performing worse than white Americans on standardized tests in public schools) that African Americans are less intelligent than whites because they've been transplanted from their native environment to which they had adapted to excel. Even though he uses the language of animals to describe all humans in this book, considering the history of dehumanizing black people by describing them in animal terms, when Ardrey uses animal terms to talk about African Americans, it's really jarring to me.
His discussion of gender is also disturbing to me. He attributes the lack of women with political power during his time to some sort of biological imperative that makes men leaders (alpha male) and women followers. He's constantly making little digs at women that I don't think he even realizes are digs ("to be so privileged as to point to a man [an alpha male] with pride and say 'That is my husband.'")
This was published in the 70s, and Ardrey is clearly very anxious about racial unrest, war, the environmental degradation of the planet, and expanding gender roles. He ends the book on a very gloomy note which predicts that nature will course correct us, not with extinction, but with us dramatically reducing our numbers through violence or spontaneous death from anxiety (which apparently occurs rather a lot in the natural world).
View all my reviews
shaddyr. It's covered with gemstones! She says I remind her of jewels! *hearts in eyes* Thank you so much, sweetie.2. The Undergraduate Conference was today, and my students rocked it! Hell, *I* rocked it. Our panel was based on the event/program from last week and our research, and OMG I LOVE THESE STUDENTS! I've been teaching college English for almost twenty years now, and this is the first time I've ever wanted to be friends with students. LOL They are graduating this month, so I hope they take me up on my offer to stay in contact. This has been the most professionally rewarding academic year I've had in a long time.
3. I've got a book review coming out in the September edition of TWC, so I'm excited about that.
4. We're making an offer on a house on Monday. So terrified. So exhilarated. Nausexcited. IDK Such a huge step. This house is perfect. I'm terrified we're not going to get it. I'm terrified we are going to get it and then somehow find ourselves in terrible financial straights. It's so scary. But also, I've felt like we've been in a holding pattern for a couple of years now, and I've been ready to grow and move to the next stage, and this is part of that. Expect more house posts to be forthcoming (either of the devastated variety or of the ecstatic OMG moving and nesting variety). I have no reason to believe it won't go through; it's been on the market for awhile now with no takers. When we went to get preapproved for a loan, we were told we could basically buy anything we wanted; the loan officer said we have old people credit. I mean, my FICO is 802. So, it's going to happen unless something super bizarre goes down. *squeal* I'm going to be relying on y'all for interior decorating advice liek whoa.
5.
The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder by Robert ArdreyMy rating: 3 of 5 stars
The Social Contract has been sitting on our shelf for years; when Josh's grandfather died, we inherited it. Neither of us has read it before.
This is not my area (biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, ethnology); I had one anthro and one socio class each as an undergrad, and I last studied biology in the 11th grade which was, uh, a very long time ago. LOL I'm just not well-versed enough in the subject matter to make real judgments about this book. I did look up Ardrey on Wikipedia, and apparently many of his theories are now accepted; this book, however, is his most controversial as one of its theses is that man is not created equal.
On the surface, I completely agree with Ardrey. I've been teaching college for twenty years now. Seeing that this person is brilliant while this one is dim isn't difficult. Beauty, intelligence, charisma, athletic ability, etc.--all these qualities vary from individual to individual.
But he seems to be arguing for a different kind of inequality that falls uncomfortably down racial and sexual lines. I have to admit that I did not read this book with the sort of attention I might if I thought I'd have to write an essay exam on it although I took perhaps a ridiculous number of notes even so. I freely admit that I don't know enough to figure out where Ardrey is making sound points and where he's jumping the rails. Some parts of it are egregious enough for me to notice; other parts seem perfectly sensible.
Ardrey argues that people are just animals and as such are subject to the same biological imperatives we see play out in the natural world; he thinks that natural, immutable laws which govern our behavior exist. He asserts that humans have no trait unique to us that makes us special in the animal world. One example (among numerous) he uses is elephant recognition of and mourning of death.
In the beginning of the book, he writes that we cannot master nature and that space exploration is just another example of hubris. He sounds very Victorian in a way--modern life is meaningless and anxiety-laden, and science has taken the place of God in our social structure. In fact, he's deeply skeptical about science while also fervently believing in it; basically, he and a handful of people are Doing Science Right, but most psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists are Doing Science Wrong by buying into the idea that all men are created equal. Ardrey says that these disciplines deny the importance of evolutionary biology; fields like evolutionary psychology are new at the time he's writing, but Ardrey seems pretty well on board, and I wouldn't be surprised if this text is now considered to be foundational.
Ardrey argues that poverty, crime and other social ills are the result of us being bored; I find the main thrust of this argument fairly convincing although it's not nuanced enough and doesn't take into account issues like discrimination, the legacy of slavery, the impact of poverty itself on these other activities. He argues that our primary motivation, our primal human drive, is to move to a superior social position if we can. He argues, again convincingly, that the limits of space control an animal species population (and animals control population through suicide, infanticide, contraceptive measures, violence, etc) which means that for Ardrey, those limits also control human populations. He thinks that contraception, abortion, and strict regulations on procreation are measures that humans are going to have to adopt at some point.
One area where Ardrey and I are in complete agreement is when he makes fun of the inaccessibility of academic writing. Why should a scientist write in such a way that her findings are completely inaccessible to the layperson? I will say this for Ardrey: his writing is clear and easy to understand and when I fail to adequately evaluate the merits of his argument, it's because I lack sufficient context and not because I don't get what he's saying. He also writes with a fair amount of humor (even if I don't always find the joke amusing).
His discussion of race disturbs me. He talks about races as if they are different subspecies of human. He argues (using studies that had recently been conducted at the time that show African Americans performing worse than white Americans on standardized tests in public schools) that African Americans are less intelligent than whites because they've been transplanted from their native environment to which they had adapted to excel. Even though he uses the language of animals to describe all humans in this book, considering the history of dehumanizing black people by describing them in animal terms, when Ardrey uses animal terms to talk about African Americans, it's really jarring to me.
His discussion of gender is also disturbing to me. He attributes the lack of women with political power during his time to some sort of biological imperative that makes men leaders (alpha male) and women followers. He's constantly making little digs at women that I don't think he even realizes are digs ("to be so privileged as to point to a man [an alpha male] with pride and say 'That is my husband.'")
This was published in the 70s, and Ardrey is clearly very anxious about racial unrest, war, the environmental degradation of the planet, and expanding gender roles. He ends the book on a very gloomy note which predicts that nature will course correct us, not with extinction, but with us dramatically reducing our numbers through violence or spontaneous death from anxiety (which apparently occurs rather a lot in the natural world).
View all my reviews
no subject
Date: 2018-04-21 02:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-04-23 05:56 pm (UTC)We get the ball rolling in just a couple hours.
*squee*