Part 2, Electric Boogaloo
By Snipzor 3 Comments
The last time I had opened her book was actually a few months ago, it was sitting on my bookshelf and I was in the middle of getting out a treasury of Edward Albee plays. Quick note, if you have the time to read any of his work, do so now. I had thought, perhaps I should give it a shot, can't hurt to try and actually read her book unlike in High School. In fact, reading her book would be an expansion of knowledge, even though the knowledge I gain is undeniably false. At least I would finally be reading some unique right-wing perspectives on things. Right?
Umm, no. Not even remotely unique. Essentially this was social values marketed as ethical debate. In the second page, she quotes Tony Blair regarding cultural globalization. Something, which I find absolutely ridiculous from the start. I begin to understand exactly why I put the book down. This was about 3 months ago, I had decided to not read The Goat or Who is Sylvia and go on to read "The Ethical Imagination", a book in which I had dreaded the first time. The second time is the exact same, I put the book down, I place it back in the bookshelf and walk away with the perplexed look on my face. I then proceed to play whatever game I had in mind, of which I don't remember. Third time, which was a few hours ago, is the exact same as well. I got to the end of the first chapter, but this time it is different. I have more understanding by my side. The first time I had approached the book with no understanding of the subject matter, or the person who wrote it. Second time was slightly different, I knew what the book was going on about and I understood a bit more about how knowledge is spread. Although had I read the book 6 months earlier at that point, I would have understood what she was doing when writing the book. Here I am again, attempting and failing at reading this horrible mess of a book, but with complete understanding of what is going on and how Margaret Somerville is actually replacing ethical debate with imposition of her social norms.
Allow me to point out the obvious, I have failed in reading her book a third time. But I get it now, before I had a perplexed look on my face as if I had just witnessed the unknown. But now I am angry, or rather have the angry expression on my face at this moment (Or specifically when I put down the book for the last time, promise), because she is literally just regurgitating her own opinions pretending to be intellectually honest. One of the largest sins in my eyes is someone pretending to be intelligent, but rather utilize the exact opposite with intellectual dishonesty. I consider that unethical, how ironic for her to do so when you consider what her job title is.
To understand where I am going with this, you need not look far. Seriously, don't look, I'll get on with it soon enough.
Gee, I wonder if the chapter title says anything about your positions?
If a chapter title sums everything up in your opinion (Let us now refer to everything she argues, as her own opinion), there is clearly something wrong with you. The chapter in the book that does this is titled "Old Nature, New Science: Respecting Nature, The Natural and Life". Take a guess what she will be talking about in the chapter. If you didn't know, think of the borg. Well, actually don't, but it seems she does (implicitly of course). The entire chapter is the first chapter that goes on about the supposed transhumanization trend that exists... well in her head, it also talks about human nature as if the term itself is an absolute. To which I simply call bullshit.
Before I get into that, the second page of the chapter (Fun fact, you can always tell her work is going to hell with the second page of any chapter) makes an interesting and absolutely pointless comment that seems to exist in spite of me. Allow me to quote her statement:
"The views and arguments I set out in this chapter in defense of the natural and its importance are diametrically opposed to an increasingly prevalent, postmodern, politically correct approach that neutralizes language to abolish difference. For Instance, a general article in the McGill Center for Research and Teaching on Women (MCRTW) Bulletin on "Philosophy, Sex and Gender" claims that natural differences between the sexes and in gender don't exist - They are just constructs. I disagree strongly, but defining the natural is not easy"
Just so you know, she doesn't actually go on about why she disagrees with this statement (Also note: This statement without citation). Perhaps she is just stating her gut reaction to the title without actually knowing what the MCRTW was talking about. I mean, we have all been socialized to believe that there is a difference between the sexes and genders that makes one more capable than the other (Think of how boys are assigned to associate with blue, while girls are associated with pink right after they are born, that action in itself is one of the first acts of socialization we experience). What does she actually know about feminism? My guess is absolutely nothing. But that's another topic, I just pointed this out to mention that she never goes into detail with her examples, and she never actually references them ever again. Imagine if I were in High School, which I was at one point. I was forced to provide citations with my claims, in particular the ones that reeked of "Grade A Bullshit". If I had not provided anything, then I would get an instant failure. But that's another topic, she does provide citations, only she does so very poorly.
Anyways, on the same page, after essentially bashing something she has no concept of. She talks about natural, which is a strange term in and of itself. What it natural? She attempts to define it, while at the very same time using the phrase "Human Nature". Having just exited a class which asked not long ago what human nature is, I can safely say that the phrase is incredibly disputed. In moments of disputed phrases in an essay/book (Especially a book), you must decide whether your offered perception of what human nature is. Whether it be Hobbesian or Aristotelianist, which I'm sure she knows all about (/end sarcasm). She essentially states that natural is both biological and cultural, which leads us to the next part.
Grr, her whole book is now making me legitimately angry, and I've gone through two pages. Allow me to skip ahead to one part in particular in the chapter. Seeing as it dealt with naturalism, or rather her concept of what is natural (Which I'd love to get into, but I can't because she is so damn nuanced and incoherent in forming a simple sentence, her work is literally making it impossible to fully grasp her ideas. If you are reading this Margaret, don't take that as a compliment. Difficulty in reading does not make an intellectual book, it is fully capable of pseudo-intellectualism), it will eventually lead to one thing. Which I will talk about in the next part of this... whatever this is.
I suppose I categorize this as a giant rant to gain closure, but I don't exactly want to categorize this series indefinitely at this moment. Because even I have no clue what's to come from this. I don't have any actual conclusion set up yet. Take note of that Margaret Somerville.
See you next time in part 3. Which will be entitled:
Did she spit in your coffee this morning?! (Part 3)
With love for all,
Snipzor