Tag Archives

2 Articles

Meet Brett and Martijn: Experts and Heretics of The Global Financial Divide

Posted by Editor on
0
Business
Meet Brett and Martijn: Experts and Heretics of The Global Financial Divide

With the launch of Building Banking on Values, a new VoiceAmerica radio series I’m hosting that goes behind the scenes to tell the stories of the people, passion and positivity within the values-based banking and financing sector; I thought to introduce you to some of our guests. Listen to the show episodes right here!

Meet Brett Scott: Alternative Finance Explorer, Author and Campaigner

Brett gets involved in financial campaigning & alternative finance, blending experience in environmental & social movements, start-up business development, derivatives, blues music and economic anthropology. He’s done work on hedge funds, commodity markets, economic aspects of climate change, and socially responsible banking.

Brett wrote The Heretic’s Guide to Global Finance (published by Pluto Press). It’s endorsed by Bill McKibben of 350.org, Ha-Joon Chang of Cambridge University & Tony Greenham of the New Economics Foundation. He’s written for The Guardian, Wired Magazine, New Scientist, The Ecologist, The New Internationalist, openDemocracy and This Is Africa (Financial Times). Brett has also appeared on BBC, radio, Arte TV and various other places.

Brett is a Fellow at the WWF/ICAEW Finance Innovation Lab, an initiative drawing alternative finance peeps together. He is always keen to meet people pioneering new economic experiments. He was also a member of the start-up team for an intrepid new financial brokerage specialising in illiquid derivatives and securitised products, developing the business in the midst of the financial crisis. Brett spearheaded the creation of a property derivatives brokerage desk, as well as being involved in a variety of special projects and sales efforts with other exotic derivatives (e.g. inflation, longevity).

Back in the day Brett was also an academic. He was the 2006/2007 Magdalene Mandela Scholar at Cambridge University, working on issues related to economic crime, environmental sustainability geopolitics, and economic philosophy in international development. Brett was an analyst at a socio-economic policy institute working on the impact of globalisation on healthcare systems. He has a couple academic papers out, related to international development.

 

Meet Martijn Lampert: Research Director of Motivaction (The Netherlands) and Expert On The Social Rich and The Values-based Economic Divide

Martijn Lampert leads the Glocalities values and trends research program covering 24 countries and 75% of the world economy, based on interviews with more than 100,000 respondents. Lampert develops and shares breakthrough knowledge of global change, brands, generations, leadership and sustainability. In the Motivaction management team he is responsible for innovation, internationalization and trend research.

Martijn is a cross-cultural expert, a leadership and marketing adviser. He enables organisations to use social intelligence and achieve their goals in an ever changing sociocultural context.

Lampert founded the Mentality research program in values and lifestyles in the Netherlands. On June 6, 2012 Martijn Lampert was elected Agency Researcher of the Year (Bureauonderzoeker van het Jaar) at the Dutch MOAwards by a jury of experts.

Specialties: Lampert provides strategic advice and presentations to international clients in the commercial, NGO and public sectors and collaborates with universities. He frequently lectures about sociocultural trends and has published two books on generational change. Martijn guides and coaches researchers and helps them bring their results and conclusions in the spotlight.Learn more.

 

Don’t forget to tune into Building Banking on Values. My VoiceAmerica radio show airs on Thursdays 15:00 PDT on the Business channel. Learn more.

#BankingOnValues @CatalystWarrior @bankingonvalues @VoiceAmBusiness @ZuidDave  @Suitpossum

https://www.linkedin.com/in/martijnlampert, http://www.motivaction.nl/en, http://www.motivaction.nl/en/news/blog,https://www.linkedin.com/in/brettreginaldscott, http://suitpossum.blogspot.ca/, https://www.linkedin.com/company/university-of-the-arts-london, https://www.google.com/url?, http://www.arts.ac.uk/

Galileo’s Middle Finger: Speaking Truth to Power and Power Talks Back

Posted by Editor on
0
Empowerment
Galileo’s Middle Finger: Speaking Truth to Power and Power Talks Back

GalileosMIddleFingerImage

Join me for a conversation on VoiceAmerica Empowerment, 4/29 @ 10am PT, with Alice Dreger about the conflict between scientific evidence and some interpretations of social justice and “empathy” (in quotation marks). Dreger starts out as a graduate student exploring the condition known as “hermaphroditism,” people born with sex organs that are ambiguous as to male or female, now called “intersex.” In reading the text books studied by her medical student husband, she discovers the interventions performed to “normalize” people sexually into the two canonical categories of male or female. The parents usually follow the recommendations of the physician-surgeon who are articulating a supposed community standard that one’s genitals should unambiguously be either male or female. Dreger discovers that many of the people whose genitals were surgically transformed were subsequently lied to about their natal [birth] sex by well-intentioned doctors and well-intentioned parents following the well-intentioned doctor’s guidance. Find out what happens when Dreger’s research surfaces evidence that does not align perfectly with the some interpretation of a social justice agenda.

This is a powerful and disturbing work. Alice Dreger, Professor of the History of Medicine at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, delivers a compelling narrative. A penis smaller than a person’s adult thumb or clitorises larger than one little finger, according to (some) conventional wisdom, have got to go. I am not making this up. The standard procedure was to surgically “delete” the offending member and surgically construct [some version of] the female genitals. This will, of course, resonate with Freudians everywhere as something motivated at the deepest levels of the unconscious. Not so Freudian is the proposition that if sex assignment from male to female and the raising of the infant as one rather than the other sex is the consequence, so be it. (Dreger is not interested in Freud in this text – that is my hobby.) Dreger discovers that many of the people whose genitals were surgically transformed were subsequently lied to about their natal [birth] sex by well-intentioned doctors and well-intentioned parents following the well-intentioned doctor’s guidance. Thus, the road to hell.

Dreger marshals evidence that people whose genitals are not surgically transformed as infants – but who have non-standard but otherwise healthy functioning genitals – are not worse off than those whose genitals were modified, and in many cases flourish. In at least one case, where the boy could not urinate standing up – and write his name in the snow with the stream of urine – due to the opening to the urethra being beneath the pen, the result of the surgery often produces a “cripple”. Yet the surgery continues to be performed. In other instance, the major concern expressed by the medical text books was that the child would become lesbian or gay. Ouch. Dreger “goes to bat” for these intersex individuals, recovering their narratives out of medical records and journals where they had been documented as cases. She advocates for them. She lobbies, blobs, publishes in the popular press. Then the unintended consequences hit. Some of those for whom she is advocating don’t like some of the evidence Dreger publishes. It is not sufficiently “on point” about transgender issues being exclusively a function of a man’s brain born in a woman’s body or vice versa. The idea that a man could love himself as a woman and so want to become a woman does not compute. As one might expect, research produces subtle nuances that require more than a sound byte or even a blog post. Suddenly Dreger finds herself the target of anger from the advocates for whom she was lobbying. It is not pretty. It gets ugly. Think self-righteous indignation as an expression of narcissistic rage and having one’s deeply felt values questioned by the evidence. There is no easy way to say it: some advocates of social justice seem to feel that the end justifies the means. The “means” include rampant forms of bullying and in-your-face confrontation, including charges of dubious ethical violations, invalid research, fictional claims about the researcher’s relations with his or her children and family, and the posting of toxic gossip on the Internet. The cause may be righteous, but the behavior is wicked and mischievous if not heinous.

Dreger survives and is vindicated. But then she begins to wonder if her experience of the collision of scientific evidence with advocacy and versions of its conventional wisdom was exceptional. Like most survivors she asks: “Is it just me?” It is not. It reminds her of the conflict between Galileo and the sedimented beliefs of the Church of his time. A point that underlies Dreger’s work and may usefully be made more explicit: The facts of empirical science are fragile. Not only can they be shouted down by bullies, purged by tyrants such the Italian Inquisition of the 16th century, or simply ignored by the average person, the facts can also be set upon by academic, university, or institutional agendas more dedicated to building a corporate brand – and being financially well funded – than attaining an evidence-based version of the truth. (An early version of this thesis, perhaps unknown to Dreger, is Hannah Arendt’s work on Truth and Politics. Not a historian of medicine but of political theory, Arendt makes the powerful point that if all versions of Euclid’s Geometry had been destroyed, mathematicians would still be able to recreate formal geometry out of the a priori forms of space and time; but if Stalin had really succeeded in purging all examples that such a person as Leon Trotsky had existed, then we really never would have heard of such an individual’s factual existence. Facts are fragile. )

A case in point. It is conventional wisdom since Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Wills (1975), that rape is primarily an act of power by the perpetrator (usually a man), not one of sex. While not primarily a scientific treatise, it becomes the basis for research that gathers sufficient evidence and the thesis “power not sex” becomes “conventional wisdom.” Enter a young (male) scholar who has a strong hunch he can prove an exception to the rule. No, sometimes rape is motivated by sex. Sometimes a guy, who has no prospect that the intended woman would have sex with him (but who he desires sexually) decides to use force. This naïve academic sees a dissertation topic that is a cut above the usual scholarly drivel. A dissertation is delivered to that effect. Not only does all hell break loose – he is silenced by angry activists – but it gets worse. The phone rings. It is a prosecuting attorney needing help with a case. The District Attorney is bringing charges against a perpetrator, an alleged rapist standing trial for his crime. The defense is arguing effectively that science has shown that rape is about power, not sex. The perpetrator could not possibly have been motivated to the crime by sex. Science says so. Wait a minute. Rape is never about sex? It is now a defense against rape that there was no other motive than sex? Since 1975 we have seen date rape and the use of incapacitating “date rape drugs” such as anesthetics facilitate the violation. Surely advocates and scientists can encompass the possibility that sometimes rape is about power, sometimes it is about sex, and sometimes, it is both (p. 125). Don’t be too sure. There is a deep lesson about human nature here. Constant dialogue is needed to keep people in rational communication without distortion and manipulation. The desire to be righteous and justified is pervasive and extends across all political spectrums. The ability to listen has rarely been in such short supply.

In conclusion, Dreger offers reflections inspired by the Founding Fathers of the early days of the United States and such politician-statesmen as Benjamin Franklin. No stranger to risk, Franklin was both flying a kite in a thunderstorm and building a structure of government capable of correcting its own errors (not on the same day). Thanks to such men, we are all better off than Galileo when speaking truth to power. Free scientific inquiry needs a free social and fair political space to flourish. Justice requires access to accurate facts and a way of testing evidence that distinguishes fact from fiction The truth is vulnerable to the influences and distortions of the social organization of power. Granted that a scientist has not been burned at the stake for over 500 years, that is no reason for complacency. There have been many ruined careers and damaged lives due to bullying and political abuses. Dreger bemoans the “push down” of the press and investigative journalism – in short, the decline of the press beneath the pressures of a publishing market in distress, the Google-ad-industrial-complex, and on the Internet no one knows you are a dog. While the Internet is a multi-edged sword and sends fear into the hearts of tyrants everywhere, it is easy to abuse. It is a dubious format for rational discourse and evidence-based anything. That should not stop one from posting her or his peer-reviewed research (this is not an example of that) but it means one must also mount the soap-box on a regular basis.

Alice Dreger. (2015). Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science. New York: Penguin.

You can read the complete blog post HERE

And tune into VoiceAmerica/Empowerment 4/29 @ 10am PT to hear the full interview.

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

RSS
Follow by Email