sienamaxwell-blog

[sienamaxwell-blog]

Prompt #6: Representation, Subjectivity and Food

Women have been equated with food in many ways for a long time. It is evident in cooking shows, songs, advertisements, food reviews, simply the way we describe women, and many other domains. As Patricia Allen and Carolyn Sachs discuss in their work “Women and Food Chains: The Gendered Politics of Food” subordination of women and sublimation of feminist consciousness in relation to food has been engaged and explained in agrifood and feminist scholarship (Allen & Sachs 1).

One of the most popular domains to examine is that of food advertising. Women are often used in these advertisements and it is interesting to examine why. Perhaps it is because, as Allen and Sachs explain that women in our culture often obsess about and are tormented by food (Allen & Sachs 2). Moreover, they discuss how women’s identities are clearly tied to their often-problematic relationship with food (Allen & Sachs 2). This complicated and problematic relationship with food is clearly demonstrated in many food advertisements. For example, there are many ads that tell women, they don’t have to feel guilty about eating something because they are low fat or low sugar or whatever else. The relationship between women and food centers around guilt, overindulgence, and anxiety. These ads depict women’s insatiable cravings for food, typically sweets or chocolate, and promote the idea that their desires are most likely due to their uncontrollable female hormones. This Reinforces the idea that women are stress eaters and for that reason, need to focus on treats that will still help them maintain their figure.

On the other hand, there are also countless advertisements of beautiful, skinny women holding an enormous burger. This plays an important role in attracting men to their store but it also tells women that they can and should eat this food while maintaining a perfect physique. There are countless advertisements by companies such as Carl Jr.’s and Burger King which employ beautiful and skinny women to sell their burgers. Women’s bodies are made public in these ads and in a lot of cases are made equivalent to the animals that the burgers are made out of. Carol J. Adams puts it perfectly with her concept of the “thingification of beings:” taking someone who is a unique being and reducing them to one thing, like their body (Adams 22). From advertisements, such as the one depicted below it is clear that men can discern that I may not be wealthy but at least I can buy this meat and I can own a woman.

In regard to this specific advertisement, Paris Hilton appears eager and ready to be consumed, and again shaming those who eat Carl Jr’s and do not look the way she does. The tagline “She’ll tell you size doesn’t matter. She’s lying,” is also a very overt sexual reference that simply says that all women are interested in, is men and their size. Moreover, it tells men who see this that even if they do not feel like they have a big enough penis, at least they can have a big burger.

          Another trend in advertising that I felt had to be mentioned was the trend of making women into the food or product itself. These advertisements put women on the same platform as food and make them equal to each other. As Adams states, women are linked to pieces of meat or other foods, subject to male predation (Adams 28). This is evidenced in countless ads, but I’ve attached a couple below, as examples.

These depictions literally make women into food and drinks so that men take away that they can eat chips and drink coke and then devour any women because they are also, just an object. In specific reference to the Katy Perry Pop Chips advertisement, the line “nothing fake about ‘em” is at the very top of the ad. This is clearly a reference to Katy Perry’s breasts. Not only is this problematic in the way that it reduces a unique person to only being concerned about her breasts, but it also shames those women who have altered certain parts of their bodies. In the coke advertisement, we do not even get to see the woman’s face. Only her backside as she removes her shirt and she is placed in the position to appear like a bottle of coke. This is a clear linking of a woman to an object and reinforces the idea that men have a right to coke and they also have a right to look at and own women’s bodies.

          Lastly, as I was thinking about women’s bodies in reference to gender and food, I couldn’t help but notice that even the way we talk about women’s body shapes is always in reference to food. We say that women can either be pear shaped, apple shaped, or banana shaped. On the other hand, men’s body shapes are never linked to food, or anything edible. They have terms like rectangle, oval, and triangle; actual shapes. I’ve attached a comparison below. It is bizarre the way we causally link women to food and don’t even seem to notice. And I think this goes back to the quote from Catharine MacKinnon who observes that “All women live in sexual objectification the way fish live in water” (103). It is so ingrained in the world around us that we barely notice.

[sienamaxwell-blog]

Prompt #7: Packaging, Trash, and the Environment

For this prompt, I will be discussing the film Trashed and apply material from the week on industrialization and John Bellamy Foster’s work, “The Vulnerable Planet.” There are many connections between the two pieces and in this prompt, I will compare the two.

 The film Trashed sets out to discover the extent and effects of the global waste problem, as it travels around the world to beautiful destinations tainted by pollution. Foster’s goal in “The Vulnerable Planet” is to provide a short economic history of the environment. Both pieces of work begin in the same way, detailing the fact that the world has changed and the way we treat the environment has changed drastically. In Trashed Jeremy Irons, who is the narrator, begins by describing that there is now more garbage than any other time in history. Moreover, although humankind has always buried its trash, it used to be less of a problem because the waste was more natural. Waste used to consist of things like wool, wood, and other natural products. Now, our waste has become much more toxic, as we have increased metals, radioactive substances, and plastics. Similarly, Foster describes how in the period after 1945, the world entered a new stage of planetary crisis in which human economic activities began to affect in entirely new ways the basic conditions of life on earth (Foster 108).

Furthermore, the film demonstrates in many places how there is proof that landfills and incinerators often breach the regulations of what they are allowed to permit into the environment and yet the owners of the landfills and incinerators are never taken to court. However, lawyers, like we see in the film, have been taken to court many times and have been threatened to have everything taken away from them.  This relates to “The Vulnerable Planet,” and is taken a step further when Foster describes the rise of monopoly capitalism, an economy dominated by large firms and the accompanying transformations in the relation between science and industry (Foster 108). Our economies are dominated by these large firms and therefore owners who act in extremely unethical ways are able to avoid taking responsibility and punishment for their actions. They also a lot of the time have the government protecting them because, as we saw in the film The World According to Monsanto there is a revolving door of people who are on the boards of these big companies and those who work for the government and FDA.

Moreover, Foster is also describing how the relationship between science and industry resulted in the large-scale use of synthetic products that are not biodegradable, that cannot be broken down by natural cycles. These have become basic elements of industrial output without considering the effect they have on the environment. This sentiment is echoed in Trashed as it mentions many times that we have become a throwaway society and that we do not think about the consequences of throwing something in the garbage. Foster’s point about the relation between science and industry also connects to the section in the film where it discusses how plastic has become an essential technology to us. We think of plastic as necessary to be able to get our food safely from the grocery store to our homes but this is completely untrue. Foster describes how our human economic processes have begun to rival the ecological cycles of the planet, opening up as never before the possibility of planet-wide ecological disaster (Foster 109). The film comments on this fact by showing examples of those stores and people who have been able to reduce their waste at the grocery store significantly by using reusable bags and containers. The film proves that not only is it possible to safely transfer your food without using plastic but it can actually end up being a cheaper option and it is significantly better for the environment. The film further describes that using plastic to cover all of our food likely has a negative effect on our health since we know that consuming plastic is harmful to us.

A very interesting section of the reading “The Vulnerable Planet,” that can be applied directly to the film is the four informal laws of ecology that go as followed: (1) everything is connected to everything else, (2) everything must go somewhere, (3) nature knows best, and (4) nothing comes from nothing. (Foster 118). Each of these laws is evident as facts in the film that we should not ignore. We have to remember that everything is connected. If we throw out garbage here, it will end up in a landfill somewhere else that will affect our air and all the species that breathe it. This is in turn related to the fact that everything must go somewhere; simply burying or piling garbage will not make it disappear. The film provides many examples of how nature knows best, for example when it shows how well fertilization and compost works. And lastly, nothing comes from nothing is evident in the fact that the film shows us that we are using resources much faster than we are giving back. The film makes this evident by stating explicitly that you cannot have infinite growth against finite resources. It just does not work.

The film ends by providing some hope and showing the good that is being done in the world, that we should try to emulate. It shows how well digesters and composts work and it also depicts how San Francisco has a zero-waste initiative and that there would be more jobs created through more recycling. Although these are all good things I find it interesting that the film feels the need to provide the economic benefits of saving the planet. I think it really demonstrates how self-involved we are as a species. That we are not willing to change, only to save the planet, but that there has to be an immediate economic benefit to us.

“The Vulnerable Planet” and Trashed essentially end with the same message. We view nature as a never-ending gift to us, when this is just plainly untrue. Everything we do has a consequence and we need to recognize that the garbage we throw out and the way we treat the environment will come back to haunt us if we do not change.

I’ve attached a video below about a woman who has essentially been able to live her life without any trash. It is very interesting and provides many ways to reduce waste in our own lives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYDQcBQUDpw

[sienamaxwell-blog]

Prompt #1 OUR DAILY BREAD IRL

PART 1

     The image that I found which looks like it could come right out of OUR DAILY BREAD is an image of workers at FOXCONN creating our Apple iPhones. As a result, this would mean that the phone production industry is very similar to the food production industry as displayed in OUR DAILY BREAD. This picture reminded me specifically of the part in the movie where the workers are picking up chickens as they pass down a conveyer belt. The workers in this picture are working on phones, from a conveyor belt.

Firstly, I will give some background into the iPhone industry, which is made at a factory called FOXCONN, in China. According to an article done by The Guardian, Foxconn’s enormous Longhua plant is a major manufacturer of Apple products. It might be the best-known factory in the world; it might also might be among the most secretive and sealed-off. Although Apple is quick to point out that the iPhone is designed in California, it is really assembled in China. This is because of the lower labour costs and massive, highly skilled workforce.

Since the iPhone is such a compact, complex machine, putting one together correctly requires sprawling assembly lines of hundreds of people who build, inspect, test and package each device.

However, people have also heard of FOXCONN because of the suicides. In 2010, many assembly line workers began killing themselves out of desperation and to protest the working conditions. Not only is the management often cruel in their treatment but the assembly line work itself is known to make people lose touch with themselves. After considering these facts, it is all the more worrisome that our food is created in the same fashion and is a quite heartless environment.

PART 2

                Clearly, in the world we work in today, there is a push towards industrialization, scientific management, and maximum efficiency in every work force. From food to technology. I will be using the reading by John Bellamy Foster, “The Vulnerable Planet,” to discuss the consequences of this push for humans and for the environment.

                Foster begins his work by describing the period after 1945, where the world entered a new stage of crisis in which human economic activities began to affect in new ways the basic conditions of life on earth (Foster 108). He goes on to say that our economy became one that was dominated by large firms and accompanied by the transformation between science and industry (Foster 108). This is very much the case for the food industry and the iPhone industry. There are only a few companies, such as Monsanto who control the majority of the food industry, and Apple, who has a huge control over the phone industry. Moreover, scientific management has clearly infected both industries because they work on a conveyor belt designed for maximum efficiency and productivity, at the expense of the workers.

                Not only does this monopoly of industries negatively affect the workers, but it also has a negative impact on the planet. Foster explains that as the world economy continued to grow and the scale of human economic processes began to rival ecological cycles of the planet, opening up as never before the planet wide ecological disaster (108). In the case of the food industry, we are using more packaging on foods, we are transferring foods longer distances in order to have every food, no matter the season. We are using more and more pesticides and insecticides. It is impossible to say that all of this on such a large scale is not negatively impacting the environment. In the case of the phone industry, we are transporting phones all over the world which creates a lot of carbon dioxide. There is also more technological waste than people know what to do with. Even with the recycling that can be done, it is extremely minimal, leaving much behind. This results in huge technological wastelands in places like India.

                On farms and in factories today, everything has to work better than ever. Faster and more efficient, bigger and smarter, more precise and timely. The system is optimized to deliver the maximum yield at the lowest possible cost per unit of production. We live in a world where scientific knowledge, technological invention, and corporate profit reinforce each other in deeply entrenched patterns. the harvester and labourers are the symbol of a social order that rewards some while punishing others. As Foster states, the labourer is systematically reduced to the status of an instrument of production (110-111), and social relations between people and all the relationships of humans to nature are reduced to mere money relations (121). When examining the world from this point of view, it is clear that these changes are reinforced across the board, it does not matter what product you are producing, as long as there is a demand for it and it becomes popular, it is difficult to remain ethical.

[sienamaxwell-blog]

Prompt #4 Representing GMOs

Part 1

     If I were trying to re-frame someone’s understanding around why the GMO industry is worth knowing about, I think I would discuss its record of environmental and chemical poisoning. This topic seems like a very important one because everyone can imagine this type of poisoning happening in their town or to themselves or a loved one. It is also connected to many other issues. I will be discussing this reframing using the documentary, “The World According to Monsanto.”

     Firstly, Monsanto does not discriminate when it comes to who they poison. They hurt those in the global south a great deal but they also hurt the people in their own backyards. For some people, it may be hard for them to put themselves in the shoes of people who are on the other side of the world, but Alabama is much easier to imagine and much more difficult to ignore.

     I would begin by discussing what happened in Anniston, Alabama. It is important to know that Monsanto manufactured a series of products which were eventually deemed unacceptably toxic in their application. These include the DDT insecticide, Agent Orange and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). Monsanto buried these PCBs in housing areas in Anniston Alabama for almost four decades, without telling them. Eventually, Anniston residents began to link the chemical to increased incidents of cancer, brain defects, children with reduced IQs, thyroid issues, and sex hormone issues. Residents also had to abandon their homes. Not only is this devastating for the people but it is also extremely bad for the environment. Monsanto does not care what it hurts as long as it is making money.

     Moreover, Monsanto cannot even claim ignorance as their records indicate that they knew PCBs were highly toxic. They have records that state exposure to PCB provokes systemic toxic effects and acne formed skin eruption, along with stating that two workers developed hepatitis. Although it may be easier to dispute the fact that the food Monsanto develops is not good for us, it is impossible to dispute records that state what happened to employees and impossible to debate the fact that they did poison the ground and the people in Anniston. Monsanto was actually convicted and forced to pay 7 million dollars in damages.  

     Another reason as to why Monsanto’s chemical and environmental poisoning is so important to consider when judging the company and their GMO’s is that it relates to so many other awful practices that they do in other fields. For example, Monsanto is famous for their “Round-up” product. Round up has been proven to be harmful to the environment but they sold the product with the word “Biodegradable” on it so people thought they were not harming the environment. Specifically, they said that it “leaves the soil clean and respects the environment.” This was eventually deemed false advertising as only 2% broke down after 28 days. Monsanto will say whatever it wants even though the claim could be totally false. Because of this claim, environmentally minded farmers could have been poisoning the environment unwillingly, which they normally would not have done. Not only are they lying and harming the environment but Roundup is also highly toxic and affects cell division. Scientists agree that it can lead to cancer. Moreover, proper testing has never been officially sanctioned so we really don’t know what damage it could be causing.

     And the list goes on: in 1989, Monsanto genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone under brand name Posilak. One veterinarian from the FDA wrote that data had been suppressed and manipulated. What they ended up finding was that there were dramatic, physiological changes in the animals that were given the hormone shot. There was also the case in 1989 where the genetically engineered L-Tryptophan killed dozens of people and made hundreds and hundreds sick through a syndrome called EMS. Thirty-seven people died and more than a thousand people were disabled. Even the head of the FDA James Maryanski said that they cannot rule out genetic engineering as a cause.  

     Another type of environmental and chemical poisoning that Monsanto has been producing for years is 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). This was the main ingredient in Agent Orange, the defoliant used in the Vietnam war which not only destroyed so much vegetation but killed and disfigured so many people along with affecting the generations to come. Even 40 years later, the dioxin is still claiming victims. It provokes cancer and serious genetic malfunctions. Although the Vietnamese people took the brunt of injuries, it was not only them who were harmed. Many U.S. soldiers, along with doctors and nurses, and volunteers were affected by the poison.

     Lastly, to convince someone I would tell them that if they care about people and if they care about themselves, then they should think twice about GMOs and Monsanto. We are not feeding more people nor are we feeding them healthier food. All we are doing is poisoning the ground, poisoning ourselves, and possibly generations to come. If we even want to have a ground to debate on in 100 years, we need to treat the planet and the people better.

Part 2

           The type of public means that I would use to try and change someone’s mind would be to attempt something like a media hoax, the type of thing that the Yes Men are known for doing.  The Yes Men are two guys, Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno, who infiltrate conferences, produce fake newspapers, and do various other things in order to expose the wrongdoings of miscellaneous, mostly corporate evildoers. They also record everything to get it out to the world through social media, news channels, and they’re own movies. In their own words, the Yes Men call their work “’laughtivism’ because, it’s funny. And it’s activist: the theory is, [they’ll] laugh bloodsuckers into oblivion and thus save the world.” I’m not saying that this would always be the best option but I do believe there is something truly powerful in laughter and satire and it has the power to make people think.

           In the case of Monsanto, I think that being able to imitate one of their executives, similarly to how they imitated someone from the WTO, would be very powerful. For example, if they were to apologize on National television for poisoning the planet or a whole town, it would be very eye-opening.  Or if they simply said what they truly thought, that they are trying to make money and it doesn’t really matter to them whether they are actually feeding anyone or not, this is our capitalist society! The people who have the power get to make the rules. This would leave people shocked, and would hopefully grab people’s attention. These hoaxes generally spark conversation about whatever “wrongdoing” they are trying to expose and they usually get people really angry. I think this topic of Monsanto should make people angry. It is typically angry people who get things done. Individuals have tried to reason with Monsanto. They’ve tried the legal route of taking them to court but nothing really seems to have changed. I think if a hoax like something the Yes Men could do, happened to Monsanto, it could make a difference.

This link includes the Yes Men’s video of the debate while imitating the WTO (at around 18:30). It is a good example of what I would be going for! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmuF3SJhWI4