Sociologic - 24 February 2010

On FBI Radio's sociologic this week we covered two areas that have been in the news quite a bit lately.



Population numbers: the elephant in the room


The first topic was about the most sustainable number for Australia’s population. This was based on an email inquiry I received from a FBI listener as well as an article I wrote for newmatilda.com. This population question has always been a sensitive one and has been described as ‘the elephant in the room’.


The article I wrote about this can be accessed here…


In essence, I argue that asking about ‘the correct size’ of the population misses the point because there are other issues surrounding sustainability. As you will see from the comments below the article, it caused quite a bit of controversy…



Housing affordability…


The second (related) topic was about housing affordability – who can afford a house in Sydney? This follows a recent report that shows housing affordability continues to decline.


This is a complicated issue with no quick fix solution – which was noted in a government inquiry no that long ago. The problem for a government is that if housing prices rise, it locks people out of the market; but if prices fall, it means that people have loans for a house that is higher than its value. This means they will try and sell it quickly and this causes a panic in the market and a downward cycle. It is this very process that led to the Global Financial Crisis.


If you have the time, check out the government report – but for me, there are three things that need to be done as a matter of urgency:

1. Focus on medium density housing: it is better to have a smaller city with more numbers that have sprawl. These have to be well designed and environmentally sensitive houses that are well serviced by public infrastructure such as schools, public transport and shops;
2. Change the taxation status for investment property: the fact that people buy into investment properties drives up the prices. It is a much too generous tax break and needs to be reviewed; and
3. Make renting more attractive: this means offering 5 to 7 year leases rather than 12 months. It means people have more security and are more likely to rent.

Finally, there will be an amazing forum this week as part of Mardi Gras: looking at homophobic violence in Western Sydney. It is on Thursday, 25 February at 5.30. Details are available here…


Thanks for listening and reading


Cheers, james

Socio-logic - week of 25 January 2010

Hi everyone


On this week’ socio-logic featured on FBI Radio, we covered two incredibly important and relevant topics.


Australia Day and nationalism

The first was nationalism and Australia Day. Over the last 15 years, mainly driven by the previous Howard Government, we have seen increasingly prominent displays of nationalism. This has been as evident at schools as it has been at events such as the Big Day Out. The new ‘Australia Day uniform’ seems to include the Australian flag as a cape.


I am not one to portray a great deal of nationalism – I prefer more subtle that outlandish displays.


Saying that, I do think it is important to acknowledge the history and show pride of one’s country – both the positive and negative aspects. In Australia, the positive aspects such a long tradition of democratic values is something we should celebrate. We should also acknowledge the dark parts of our history, such as the Aboriginal Stolen Generation, so we can repair the mistakes and ensure they are not repeated.


While there are many definitions of ‘nationalism’, it essentially refers to pride and devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. This does not mean ‘blind’ or ‘absolute’ devotion – simply that someone feels a connection.


I believe that nationalism is a double edged sword. On the positive side, it involves helping others in our community no matter their background, acknowledging our national mistakes and ensuring that our nation plays a key and positive role in international affairs. This is an inclusive nationalism – we are proud to be Australian but not at the expense of other people or cultures.


One author who takes this position is Tim Soutphommasane. His recent book on ‘Reclaiming Nationalism’ discusses a progressive nationalism in detail. I really enjoyed it and recommend you read it if you want to know more about this aspect of nationalism.


The dark side of nationalism is exclusionary: where we see ourselves as better than others and other cultures as inferior. This is the nationalism that is aggressive and was one of the reasons for the Cronulla Riots a few years ago. Negative nationalism can be violent and includes slogans such as ‘f#%k off we’re full.’


John Burmingham wrote about this type of nationalism the other day. It is a great article and worth a read.


Haiti earthquake and the international response

The second topic this week was the Haiti earthquake and the international response. Before continuing, it is important to acknowledge the great work being done in Haiti by some excellent organisations including Oxfam (who I work with), MSF and the Red Cross.


The problem with aid and humanitarian work is that it is as much about politics as it is about helping others. This is a point that organisations such as Aid/Watch raise frequently: noting that the aid project is as much about ‘pursuing our national interest’ as it is about poverty relief. Such twin objectives are reflected by other governments also, which means that the relief effort in Haiti has been as much about certain nations and organisation advertising themselves as it has been about emergency relief.


Naomi Klein talks about this in some detail in her blog and is certainly worth a read.


It is a tragedy that this is occurring – and something that we should demand our governments change: aid should be about sustainable poverty relief and should not about Australia’s national interest. Contact Aid/Watch for more information (and please note, I work with these guys also).


Contact me at askjames@fbiradio.com if you have any questions.


Cheers, james

Fallacy 6: Spent fuel does not contribute to weapons

Following on from my last blog on climate change fallacies and nuclear power, I had some emails thanking me and asking me some more questions. I am not an expert in this area but a recent article by Mark Diesendorf, where I am sourcing these fallacies from, can give you more details. So fallacy 6 is about spent fuel from nuclear reactors…

Fallacy 6: Spent fuel does not contribute to weapons

That is, spent fuel from nuclear power stations cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by noting that this is one of the most frequent falsities uttered by the nuclear industry and its supporters. This fallacy has been refuted by many experts including Dr Theodore Taylor, commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

MD presents the following information: a standard 1000 megawatt nuclear power station produces about 200 kilograms of “reactor-grade plutonium annually”. This, according to MD, is enough for 20 nuclear bombs. They reactor grade quality is below weapons-grade, it still has an amazing amount of destructive capability.

Attached to this fallacy is that nuclear power stations based on thorium rather than uranium cannot produce a nuclear explosion. MD says, ‘not true’: to use thorium as a fuel it must first be converted to uranium-233 which is ‘fissile’. This means that it can undergo nuclear fission and can be used as either a fuel or as an explosive in a bomb!

MD also reminds us that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are intimately linked: each nation with power ambitions moves pretty quickly into establishing bombs… the more nuclear stations the more likely we are to see more nuclear weapons - something that no-one should be comfortable with.

Confronting climate change deniers 5: Nuclear is part of the answer

Given the recent election of Tony Abbott as Opposition leader who supports a nuclear solution to global warming (and who has been supported as such by some sections of the media), it is time to consider the nuclear equation. As such, I turn back to Mark Diesendorf’s book, Climate Action, to reflect on this. As the title of this blog suggests, this is the fifth fallacy that those concerned about climate change must be prepared to confront.


Response: In his book, Mark Diesendorf (MD) begins by noting that high grade uranium ore will, at current rates of use, only last several more decades. When this is all used up, we will have to revert to low grade ore.


What does this mean? Well, according to MD, for every 1 kilogram of yellowcake (a type of uranium concentrate), some ten tonnes of rock will need to be mined – a process which uses massive amounts of fossil fuels. The carbon emissions of this process will be significant. MD argues that the result would be no different to running a gas-fired power station.


Some pro-nuclear commentators have argued that this can be overcome using ‘fast breeder reactors’: which have the potential to increase the original uranium fuel by a factor of 50 to 1. In response, MD notes that the world’s last large such reactor was in France and only functioned for 276 days in its 10 years of operation, and was closed in 1998 after countless problems and cost eu9 million. Only one other such reactor is currently operating and is also unreliable. Even if this was not a problem and such reactors were reliable, they require large-scale processing of spent fuel which is intensely radioactive – which involves serious hazards and costs.


There are also economic reasons why nuclear power is not the answer. MD also explains that three commercial reactors have been built in the USA, but all have failed to be economically viable and been closed.


Then there is the waste issue. Overall, MD notes that while there are a handful of non-military plants operating successfully, there is only a small fraction of plutonium produced globally in nuclear power stations is being ‘recycled’: the rest is unseparated in high-level waste and stored temporarily next to the stations that produced it. How temporary: in some cases temporary has meant 50 years!


Another limitation of the nuclear option is the long planning and construction time – especially for new entrants into this industry. In Australia, MD notes, it would 15 years to get one up and running even if there was no public opposition (which is unlikely). Further, such dangerous technologies should never be rushed or things can easily go wrong (as we have seen various spills in Australian mines and English power plants).


Even in the UK, which produces about 19 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, there have been constant problems and a need to change the type of station being built: a process that has meant construction times have been long and the costs always much higher than predicted. A new station being built in Finland is experiencing similar problems: by December 2008 is two years behind schedule and its costs had escalated by about eu1.5 billion.


MD concludes that based on current technology, nuclear power is neither a short-term nor long-term solution to global warming. The so-called Generation 4 plants are at least 30 years away: if they ever arrive. In other words, nuclear power is a distraction from genuine solutions to global warming.

If you want more information on this issue, check out the article by Prof. Ian Lowe from the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Socio-logic with James - FBi Radio (19 Nov 2009): feminism and slavery

Hey everyone

The last couple of weeks have been crazy so I have not had a chance to post my blog with the usual enthusiasm, but I am back this week.

This week on FBI Radio (94.5 fm), I covered 2 broad areas: feminism (yes, the ‘f’-word) and modern day slavery.

The feminism story was inspired from the news the week before of the some of the degrading rituals that some Sydney Uni residential colleges follow. Alex and I discussed this on air but alas, no blog. For a great read, however, check out the article by Carina Garland.

So let’s look at this week’s issues...

Is Feminism still relevant?

For some background on gender, sex and feminism check out my blog below.

To begin with, we should understand that feminism simply means the push for political, cultural or economic rights and legal protection for women. (See, it is not a scary word!)

We can look at the challenges facing women both in Australia and internationally. These are different challenges and should not be simply grouped together. What is important however, is that challenges still on exist both on the economic and social front (again, see below for some evidence I provide) as well as check out the figures provided by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Feminism is about confronting these challenges with the goal of equality: and I think remains relevant today though the challenges, in Australia, have changed.

I call myself a feminist – and believe that it is just as relevant today as ever.

Modern day slavery

Slavery ‘officially ended over 200 years ago, but unfortunately, it persists today. Though exact figures are almost impossible to come by, it is estimated that that there are 27 million people around the world today are being held in slavery. To think about the size of that, it is the Australian population plus another 7 million! Figures indicate that this illegal industry generates up to US$100 billion per year.

One organisation working to stop slavery is Free the Slaves, which was founded in 2001 as well as its UK sister organisation Anti-Slavery International (which is the world's oldest human rights group).

Slavery is essentially the ownership of a person: they become like any other commodity (like a pair of shoes: unfortunate example, but this is something that we need to be brutally honest about).

Free the Slaves draws an important distinction between slavery and extremely exploitative labour, though they also admit that this is a very thin line.

Sweatshop workers are exploited by being forced to work long hours under difficult and abusive conditions with little pay. Slaves face the same conditions, but additionally they cannot walk away – having lost all their rights and free will.

Further, most slaves are paid nothing at all, and the physical and psychological violence used against them is so complete that they cannot escape their slavery.

Both Free the Slave and organisations like Oxfam Australia and also many organisations like Apheda which are associated with labour unions work on these issues.

What is important here is that we can all do something about this – our everyday actions can break down slavery and overcome sweatshop conditions.

Follow the hot-links to find out how you can help (as well as get more information).

Cheers, james

Understanding where gender relationships come from in everyday life

Introduction

This blog is focussed on the idea of performance: the way we perform of ‘gender’. As I will explain below, there is an important difference between sex and gender.

Before I get into such descriptions though, I want to mention an important cultural studies theorist, Irving Goffman. Goffman studied the rituals and practices of everyday life – something that may not sound exciting, but if you think about it, it is. Think about how we behave everyday: from shaking hands to standing in queues, we follow these invisible rule. What Goffman argued was that our experiences of everyday life are all based on performance. Life is like we are living on a stage and we perform accordingly. Like any performance, much of what we perform is based on the actors around us.

So, for example, when I am hanging out with students, I take the role of a lecturer. But when I am hanging out with my big brother, take the role of little brother. In other words, our performance is always changing.

How does this translate to gender? Well, as I will argue, there are daily rituals and routines that we follow and perform that give rise to gender identity. In others words, we are going to understand what makes us a man, what makes us a woman, and how we learn to behave in the appropriate way.

By unfolding this, we learn how power is shaped in our society and why for centuries women were though of as the 'inferior sex.' Even today in wealthy nations like Australia, these gendered roles persist and create uneven power relations. To overcome these, we must understand why they come about. So, let's begin…


Sex and gender

The starting point of this blog is to understand the difference between sex and gender.
The simplest way to keep the difference in mind is to think of sex as our biological make-up. That is, there are certain biological aspects that allow us to be defined as men and women: yes, our bits! This is not always clear-cut however, as there are many who are born as what can be described as inter-sex. That is, with biological features of both men and women: never clearly defined. Our society is not used to dealing with this group of people and I would love to write more but this is not the blog to do this.

Gender, on the other hand, are the social and cultural characteristics and personality traits that we assign different the sexes. In other words, what are the characteristics that make us men and women. These are not biological, but the social dimensions assigned to men and women – such as masculine and feminine..

So, if we think about it, we can think about the characteristics that make women feminine and what makes women beautiful. We think of the ideal women and the specific characteristics she is assigned. In our society, the feminine may include things such as thin, demure, polite, sexy but not dominating. You can see how these are social characteristics assigned to women.

We can contrast this to the masculine – or the social characteristics that makes the ideal male: strong, some level of aggression but not too much, fit, the breadwinner, sexually active, the leader and stronger parent.

As we can see, there are social and cultural attributes, not just physical, that we assign to the different sexes – and this is what we define as gender.

'Male' and 'female', then, are biological terms: they point to anatomical, primarily genital difference. "'Man' and 'woman', however, are gendered terms, and signify social, that is behavioural and experiential difference. They are categories with certain coded behaviours which we as young males or females must learn in order to become men or women. Masculinity and femininity thus are not inherent characteristics" (Buchbinder, 1994: 3).

Now, the concept of gender is relatively new and only emerged in the 1970s. Up until this time, it was assumed that your gender was attributed to your sex. That is, your personality was essentially determined by your sex: culture was seen as not really being a factor.

So this brings us to the link between sex, gender and identifying who we are.


Gender, rituals and routines

The question for us to consider is, what role do routines and rituals play in our everyday lives that confirm and enforce these idealised gendered roles. If we all think of what we did in the last 24 hours, we can think of routines and rituals that we have followed and how these are gendered.

Possible examples are:

• Putting on make up? Feminine
• Tuning the car? Masculine
• Doing the ironing? Feminine
• Preparing the children for school? Feminine
• Fixing a leaky tap? Masculine
• Sitting on the couch drinking beer and watching footy with mates, eating pizza and yelling at the television? Masculine
• Shaving your legs? Feminine

Ok, you can hopefully see that there are some specific roles rituals and routines that are assigned to genders. These are not natural or ‘innate’ but my point is about the role we assign to certain tasks.

Let's now try and ground this a little further. Think of a family roast and assign the following roles:

• Who does the inviting?
  
• Who does the cooking?
• Who sets the table?
• Who watches the footy while this is happening?
• Who serves the food?
• Who cleans the table?
• Where do the different men and women congregate during the preparation?
  
  

My point here is that the process of performing gender and what is accepted as appropriate 'gendered' behaviour is learnt and culturally specific. And the way we learn most of this information is not that someone sits down and tells us: this is how men behave and this is how women should act. Rather, we learn it in the rituals and routines of everyday life – and usually by just observing what others do and following.

Importantly, these rituals and routines tell us a great deal about our culture. And we can hopefully see from the examples above, how they shape power relations in our society.

The beauty myth

So where does this take us? When I say culture, I am drawing on the following definition provided by Anthony Giddens:

'Culture consists of the values the members of a given group hold, the norms they follow, and the material goods they create' (Giddens, 1989, Sociology, 31).

Let's think about gender and beauty, and what insights this provides us about our culture and power relations in our society.

Some important economics around the beauty industry:

• Australians spend $2.5 billion on cosmetics, skin care and fragrances each year;
• This has been increasing by about 10% per year; and
• This is part of a $50 billion industry around the world that focuses on skin care alone. (I am not sure about cosmetics and fragrances.)
  

We also have the rise of Botox parties and the increasing acceptance of cosmetic surgery for younger and younger girls, time spent at the gym, dieting and diet fads as well as all the focus on celebrities and what is happening on their bodies.

In other words it is not possible to actually determine how much money is spent in this area. What we produce tells us a great deal about our culture – so what does the production of the beauty industry tell us about our culture?

According to Naomi Wolf in her very important book, our culture has produced a 'beauty myth.' That is, that our culture has established the myth that there is only one understanding of beauty and this is being universalised. The beauty myth, according to Wolf, is something that we are all expected to work towards it. For Wolf, this beauty is something that is manufactured by the advertising industry and is an important component of the global economy.

While Wolf focuses on the feminine, we also see similar patterns for the masculine. Despite this, Wolf also argues that this confirms the dominance of men over women: there are many more beauty rituals that are demanded from women than men. Think of the following routines that are mainly feminine and reflect the beautiful:

• Makeup: women spent a great deal of their time buying and using makeup. Wolf argues that this is to attract the male gaze;
• Shaving: while men shave their facial hair, women are expected to keep all their body hair in check. If we think about the pain of waxing and the frustration of shaving legs, armpits and plucking facial hair, what use is it to women? As far as I know, there is no use except making women more feminine.
• Grooming: while men are expected to groom, more pressure is placed on women to look attractive. A man can look un-kept and still be attractive. The same does not apply to women.
• Cosmetic surgery: most cosmetic surgery is undertaken by women rather than men. This involves Botox to look younger, breast augmentation and cellulite – which are three of the most popular procedures undertaken.
• Anti-aging treatments: most again are directed to women. Men, as they get older and get grey, are said to look sophisticated. It is hardly the case for women. (Look at news readers: most women on TV are young while men are older.)
  

We do not have to look far to see images around us: what we expect men and women to be like. The point of Naomi Wolf's work is to highlight how the beauty myth is specifically targeted towards women.

Authors such as Arthur Brittan undertake similar work when it comes to male masculinities. We can see pressures placed on the male identity: though this is a very different pressure that exists. For Brittan, masculinity is used as a way to measure men: to pressure them to fit into an ideal. So men are pushed towards certain professions and sports because these are the masculine. Everyday experiences of masculinities that have their own rituals and routines include the breadwinner ethic, alcohol consumption and also exposure to violence.

Why feminism is cool

In today's society, the word 'feminism' is given a bad wrap: it has been labelled as something that is from the past and is no longer relevant. I want to emphasise the point however, that the word feminism is another way to describe demands for gender justice and equal rights.

The question that I am often asked is, 'is this still relevant today?' Here are some statistics that we should note:

• Average total weekly earnings according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) where: $756.50. For Men: $897.50 but for Women: $611.50;
• Only 8% of board positions in publically listed companies are taken by women; and
• On a daily basis, men spend 2.5 hours a day on work around the house, and women spend almost 4 hours.
  

If we combine this with the concept of the beauty myth, you can see that women still have a battle on their hand to achieve equality: and this is why feminism is still important – and this is why feminism is cool.

Concluding comments

The main issue I want to emphasise here is that there is an important difference between sex and gender – and we are socialised through certain rituals and routines to follow emphasise gender roles. The question is, do we simply pass them on without question and reflect existing power relationships, or do we attempt to confront them.

According to Frye, we often accept gender roles as natural or innate, but this is not the case. This has implications for power, which Frye notes as follows:

'For efficient subordination, what's wanted is that the structure not appear to be a cultural artefact kept in place by human decision or custom, but that it appear natural – that it appear to be quite a direct consequence of facts about the beast which are beyond the scope of human manipulation' (Frye quoted in Lorber & Farrel, 1991: 33).

Sources:
Billington, R. et al (1991) Culture and Society Macmillan, London.
Brittan, A. (1989) Masculinity and power, Basil Blackwell
Buchbinder, D. (1994) Masculinities and Identities Melbourne Uni. Press, Melbourne.
Connell, B. (1987) Gender and Power Polity, Cambridge.
Connell, B. (1995) Masculinities Polity, Cambridge.
Dunecki, L. (2006) 'Peddling the beauty myth', 14 October 2006, The Age
Wolf, N. (1991) The Beauty Myth, Vintage Books, Sydney.

Confronting climate change deniers 4: CCS is the sole answer

Fallacy 4: We can solve everything using carbon capture and sequestration

Continuing my review of fallacies offered by climate change deniers discussed by Mark Diesondorf in his latest book, I now turn to a shorty but a goody! The fallacy is simply this: coal power with CO2 (carbon) capture and sequestration (or CCS) is the principle greenhouse solution.

Response: Big Mark D begins by note that a while a few components of this solution exist, it remains largely an unproven technology.

The federal government is pouring $2 billion into this technology in an effort to save the coal industry (yes kids, Mark does say $2 billion). Despite this, pilot plants will only be built in about 10 years with no commercial production possible until long after that.

In contrast to the Australian position, the US Government terminated funding to a power station with CCS technology because of the out of control costs. In addition, there are substantial risks that the carbon captured will escape – which adds to the cost and liability!

Despite this, Mark D does not dismiss the technology, but quotes the Future of Coal study that indicates it is possible that CCS can make a contribution but not before 2025. So rather than dismissing, Mark argues we should not put all our eggs into this unreliable and unproven basket. Rather, we should also be investing in renewable technologies that are ready to go (wind, solar and so on) as well as the ones that are close to fruition (such as rock geothermal)

Hard to argue against that one!

Cheers, james