A social scientist’s reflections on the opportunities and challenges of publishing in scientific journals.

This post was originally posted on the Centre for Health, Technologies and Social Practice blog and can be read here: https://thesp.leeds.ac.uk/new-article-on-public-engagement-with-autism-science/

In October, Warren Pearce (of The University of Sheffield) and I published an article snappily titled Autism scientists’ reflections on the opportunities and challenges of public engagement: A qualitative analysis in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. As you might gather from the title, the article is concerned with the ways in which scientists (experimental psychologists and neuroscientists, in particular) understand their interactions with autistic individuals.

The article is available open access so you can click on the above link and have a read. If you don’t have time, though:

Our core finding is that researchers describe engagement activities as particularly difficult due to an interaction between substantive political differences within the autistic community and impairments specific to autism. While existing research has noted conflict and political difference within the autism community…, that impairments—most notably socio-communicative impairments—are perceived by some of our interviewees to significantly affect engagement is an important and novel finding which has consequences for determining the nature of future engagement activities. (Hollin & Pearce, online first, p.2)

As is hinted at in this quote, our hope is that this paper will encourage scientists to, first, dwell upon how they go about conducting public engagement activities; second, devote time to developing mechanisms and venues for engagement which allow fruitful dialogue; and third, accept that dissensus is an inevitable part of the politics of autism, something to be embraced rather than feared.

Publishing something new is always a bit scary – you never know if it will be well received, roundly bashed, or simply ignored – but publishing social science in a scientific outlet comes with extra dose of trepidation. JADD is a high-profile journal – Google Scholar ranks it the number 1 journal for both ‘child and adolescent psychology’ and ‘developmental disabilities’ – and overwhelmingly publishes quantitative work. Pieces like ours stick out like a sore thumb in this context and can receive kick-back from scholarly communities who aren’t used to reading sociological analyses and may, in some instances, doubt the value of qualitative research or even the motives of the researchers. The last time Warren and myself published a qualitative piece together in a scientific context (in Nature Climate Change) the paper received a mixed response and, despite a significant amount of debate, I don’t feel that we ever got very close to a satisfying conclusion or rapprochement.

It is early days, but it seems like the response to this paper is more positive. The article has been downloaded over 3,000 times; has been blogged about and discussed on a podcast by the Autism Science Foundation; and has received generally positive feedback on social media. Jack Cusack, director of science at Austistica, the UK’s autism research charity, described an ‘Interesting and important article on the importance of embracing dissensus (as well consensus) and productive dialogue with respect to public engagement in autism research.

Not every response has been positive, of course. One criticism is that we should have been harsher on scientists who could be read as blaming autistic people for any failings in public engagement activities. We understand this criticism, and it would be churlish to quell dissensus when the paper encourages us to embrace it! Because I only spoke to scientists (this paper emerges from my PhD, which was concerned with autism science more broadly) we’re simply unable to a) say what ‘really’ happens during engagement or b) present counter-positions from autistic self-advocates. We do try to push back where appropriate – stating, for example, that any ‘assertion that the autistic individual is the ‘problem’ in engagement, in particular, can and probably should be problematized’ (p.8) – but there is much work left to be done in the area and it will need to improve on our piece.

For Warren and myself, it’s been great to have a positive experience publishing in an outlet such as JADD, which is so different to the places I’ve published other work from this project. We’re both now working on our own projects which consider other arenas where there is a significant degree of dissensus: Warren’s Making Climate Social considers climate science debate on social media, whereas my own recently launched Hard Knock Life (website forthcoming!) looks at head injury in sport.We’re hope to build on this experience in order to continue a productive dialogue between scientists, stakeholders, and sociologists.


Caring for the clone

This post was originally posted on the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender studies blog and can be read here: http://gender-studies.leeds.ac.uk/2018/02/13/caring-for-the-clone-kinship-and-control/

On the 24th of January 2018, it was widely reported that two female, crab-eating macaques (Macaca fascicularis) named Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua had become the first primates born to cloning technologies like those used to create Dolly the Sheep. Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua are the first of many planned clones which will, in the future, have their genes edited so that their behaviour more closely matches humans with Parkinson’s disease who they are intended model. There is so much to be said about these animals; from their name (Zhonghua being a name for China) to the fact that the success of this experiment is ushering in a soon-to-be-formally-announced International Primate Research Centre in Shaghai which is intended to become ‘the CERN of primate biology’. Here, however, I’ll focus on just two topics of particular concern to feminist enquiry and gender scholarship: kinship and care.

I’ve spoken with the CIGS MA students about kinship a lot this year. We often think of kinship as being simply a matter of genetic relatedness (parents and children, brothers and sisters), but our discussions have suggested something more complicated. Much of this discussion has taken place in the context of Gayle Rubin’s foundational piece The Traffic in Women wherein Rubin states that ‘Kinship is organization, and organization gives power. But who is organized?’ (Rubin 1975: 174). Rubin concludes that it is women who are organized – trafficked – as objects in a ‘sex/gender system’ premised upon particular kinship relations. On this basis Rubin called for an overhaul of kinship relations as central to any project of emancipation.

It is probably not the overhaul that Rubin anticipated but anthropologist Sophia Roosth reminds us that animals like the macaques very obviously queer kinship categories for they ‘inaugurate new forms of relatedness…[and] do not fit neatly into trees of life based on descent, ancestry, or lineage’ (Roosth 2017: 75). These daughters are their own mothers and are brought into contact with ourselves and our kin who are suffering from neurodegenerative diseases. Meanwhile other kin (the surrogate mother, the genetically identical siblings that died shortly after birth) are sidelined or footnoted. As Donna Haraway said a full decade ago, these new kinship relations necessitate us to ask hard and important questions about kinship:

‘Who are my kin in this odd world of promising monsters, vampires, surrogates, living tools, and aliens? How are natural kinds identified in the realms of late-twentieth-century technoscience? What kinds of crosses and offspring count as legitimate and illegitimate, to whom and at what cost? Who are my familiars, my siblings, and what kind of liveable world are we trying to build?’ (Haraway 1997: 53, emphasis added)

In attempting to address Haraway’s questions, I think it is worth at least dwelling on the observation of Hugh Raffles who, in the context of a different animals, notes a kinship paradox at the heart of these experiments, the fact that these animals:

‘…can be so like us that it seems natural to think of it as our biological surrogate and simultaneously can be so entirely unlike us that it seems equally natural to subject it, without remorse or even concern, to unconstrained destruction.’ (Raffles 2010: 120)

Alongside questions of kinship, these macaques tie into topics I’m discussing with undergraduates in our school as part of a course on ‘gender, technology, and the body’ which concern matters of care and domestic practice. The currently narrated story is one of technological innovation and the power of science that is evidently open to the long-standing critique that domestic and care work, almost invariably undertaken by women, is ignored and deemed irrelevant. In the case of animal experimentation this care work often revolves around everyday activities such as cleaning housing and preparing food. Carrie Friese has conducted extensive research in another biotechnical arena of relevance to this matter; de-extinction wherein extinct species are brought back into the world in a story reminiscent of Jurassic Park. As part of this story Friese tells us about attempts to bring back the gaur, a type of Indian bison. Friese notes that these attempts to bring gaur back from the dead failed not because technological inadequacy but, rather because of husbandry problems: ‘people involved simply did not know how to hand rear a guar’ (Friese & Marris 2014: 2). At the very least we are reminded here that ‘questions regarding animal care need to be understood as a crucial part of de-extinction experimentation, rather than downstream concerns’ (Friese & Marris 2014: 2). The challenges for those working with Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua will be different to those working with gaur (if wikipedia’s figures are to be believed, something in the region of 41,000 macaques will be used in animal experiments in the United States this year, which suggests a lack of knowledge will not be a problem) but care and domestic work will remain central to these endeavours. Taking account of this unacknowledged work – and asking, again, for whom and at what cost – is something that feminist and gender studies scholars and particularly accustomed to. That expertise and the questioning and understanding kinship and care remains as relevant today as it was to Rubin writing half a century ago.




Friese, C. & Marris, C., 2014. Making De-Extinction Mundane? PLoS Biology, 12(3), pp.12–14.

Haraway, D.J., 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouseTM: feminism and technoscience, New York: Routledge.

Raffles, H., 2010. Insectopedia, New York: Random House.

Roosth, S., 2017. Synthetic: How Life Got Made, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Rubin, G., 1975. The traffic in women: Notes on the “political economy” of sex. In R. Reiter, ed. Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 157–210.



Thanksgiving: Sports, Society and Oppression

This post (and the pieces for which it is an introduction) were originally posted on the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender studies blog and can be read here: http://gender-studies.leeds.ac.uk/2017/11/28/thanksgiving-the-relationship-between-sport-society-and-oppression-introduction/ 

Today, the forth Thursday in November, millions of North Americans are celebrating Thanksgiving. Like many others around the world my thoughts and actions today are shaped by two spheres of American life. First, and as fans pour into stadiums in Dallas, Detroit, and Washington, I will be meeting with friends and watching a lot of American Football. Thanksgiving and American Football are inextricably entangled. Much like Association Football and Boxing Day (December 26th) in the UK, playing football on Thanksgiving is a tradition which extends back into the 19th century and the National Football League (NFL) has hosted games on Thanksgiving every year since the league was founded in 1920. Even as someone who supports the side that, last year, suffered ‘the worst defeat in the history of sport’ I find myself drawn back to this tradition.

Second, I will be thinking about colonialism. As Ashley Niccole McCray and Lawrence Ware say in their article for CounterPunch:

‘Let’s be honest. On the last [sic] Thursday of November, every year, we celebrate the beginning of an European invasion that ends with the death or relocation of millions of native people.’

McCray and Ware’s piece is just one of many arguing that Thanksgiving needs to be radically rethought and decolonized. An acknowledgement that Thanksgiving is bound up with colonialism and genocide is not enough; the matter needs to be front and centre for, as Howard Zinn notes in his famed book A People’s History of the United States:

‘To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discoverers, and to deemphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves – unwittingly – to justify what is done.’ (Zinn 1980: 9)


Under normal circumstances, colonialism and football would occupy different spaces in my mind. This year, however, things are quite different. In part, this is due to the fact that the Washington Redskins – the most brazen of all racist American team names – are playing this Thanksgiving. This coming together of sport, racism, and colonialism is also apparent, however, because of ongoing protests against police brutality made mainly, although not exclusively, by African-American athletes playing in the NFL.

As Rembert Browne writes for Bleacher Report these protests over police brutality came to national attention in August 2016 when it was noticed that then San Francisco 49ers (and now unemployed) quarterback Colin Kaepernick was sitting through the national anthem. (Kaepernick subsequently starting kneeling following conversations with ex-NFL player and military veteran Nate Boyer who suggested that kneeling was more respectful than sitting in a military context.) Over a year later, Kaepernick’s protest continues to generate front page news, not least because of numerous and notable provocations and incidents. First, Donald Trump’s repeated pronouncements on the protests. Second, star Seattle player Michael Bennett’s apparent arrest and mistreatment by the Las Vegas Police Department. Third, mind blowingly offensive statements from NFL owners. And forth, Kaepernick’s ongoing lawsuit which claims that owners of NFL teams have colluded to keep him out of the league. All this, of course, has occurred against ongoing acts of violence which were the cause of protests in the first place. For the first time in a long time, those of us who watch the NFL are being forced to consider matters of race at the exact same moment that we are watching the sport.


The links in the text above provide a good summary of the particularities of the Kaepernick case. The purpose of this blog, however, is to ask a slightly broader question into which the current case clearly fits: what is the relationship between oppression and sport? It seems to me that there are three answers generally proffered in relation to this question.

The first is to suggest that we need to keep politics out of sport. Like church and state, politics and sport need to be kept apart for the good of us all. Recent polls (discussed in the above link) suggest that the majority of Americans feel this way. The problem, of course, is that this is impossible. As the recent Oscar winning documentary OJ: Made in America made clear, politics and sport are absolutely intertwined. How could it be otherwise when there is an Alternative Soccer World Cup for peoples whose nations are not recognised by Soccer’s world governing body, FIFA?

The second option is to consider sport as a mirror of society or broader social patterns. Perhaps the fact that female tennis players and academics are paid less than their male peers should be understood as part of the same patriarchal culture? Examples of this argument are widespread and well-founded. In his biography of Muhammed Ali, for example, David Remnick argues that ‘Ali may not have read W.E.B. Du Bois, but he was a living example of the “two-ness,” the “double-consciousness,” described in The Souls of Black Folk’ (Remnick 1999: 278). The implication here is that Ali, his views, and his treatment can be understood with reference to pre-existing social theories which are not concerned with the particularities of sport.

The third (and final?) option is that sport somehow shapes or modifies oppressions and plays a constitutive role in society. Sport here does not reflect society but, as Jelani Cobb puts it, ‘refracts’ (that is, modifies) national anxieties. This view is well articulated by the historian, journalist, and socialist CLR James. In Beyond a Boundary, often claimed to be the greatest sports book ever written, James discusses liberal and socialist histories of Victorian England. James is aghast that these histories do not include mention of W.G. Grace, one of cricket’s most enduring icons and important players:

‘I can no longer accept the system of values which could not find in these books a place for W.G. Grace… Between those who, writing about social life in Britain, can leave him out, and myself, there yawns a gulf deep and wide.’ (James 1963/2005: 208)

For James, understanding society necessitates an understanding of sport – not as an epiphenomenon but as a constitutive element.


For me, understanding the relationship between sport, society, and oppression is a fascinating and important area of sociological inquiry; albeit an area I am not qualified to contribute to. Fortunately, here at Leeds there are a number of scholars whose work entails a detailed understanding of the relationship between sport and society. This Thanksgiving, at a time when colonialism and sport are to the front of so many minds, I asked 5 scholars a question which speaks to this matter:

“How should we understand the role of sport within society, with particular reference to various oppressions?”

What follows below are there answers. They are thoughtful and diverse and I hope they make us all think about this matter a little more closely.


James, C., 2005. Beyond a Boundary, London: Yellow Jersey Press.

Remnick, D., 1999. King of the World: Muhammed Ali and the Rise of an American Hero, New York: Picador.

Zinn, H., 1980. A People’s History of the United States, New York: HarperCollins Publishers.





Methodological clarity required when publishing social science in natural science journals

This post is co-authored with Warren Pearce and first appeared on the Making Science Public blog on the 23/10/2015. It is concerns a correspondence which appeared in Nature Climate Change. You can check out the original version (and the lively comments section!) here: https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/10/23/methodological-clarity-required-when-publishing-social-science-in-natural-science-journals/

The latest issue of Nature Climate Change features a Correspondence from Peter Jacobs and colleagues which concerns a recent Letter that appeared in the same journal;our Reply is also published. We do not wish to deny that there are real and significant differences between ourselves and Jacobs et al but we think the correspondence also says something about the publication of qualitative research studies in prestigious natural scientific outlets. This Correspondence/Reply received three-peer reviews: one appeared unsure if our reply was worthy of publication; one felt Jacobs et al should be ignored; and a third, rather presciently, felt that both social scientists and natural scientists would think they had ‘won’ and return to their houses none-the-wiser. Given that Nature Climate Change has published many calls for qualitative and/or interpretive studies from the social sciences and humanities, we’d like to muse, very briefly, on what might be learned from this exchange for those writing, or reading, reports in the future. From our perspective, we’d like to highlight the importance, and difficulty, of inductive research.

We could think of hypothetic-deductive, hypothesis driven, research as being “top-down” – one starts with a theory or a question and then interrogates a data set in order to see how that theory stands in relation to the data. Inductive research is quite different and is “bottom up” – you start with the data, see patterns or interesting things, and the theories and broader claims are integrated later. This latter approach is certainly the one which we took in our Letter; the two main theoretical sources in that piece – Jeanne Fahnestock’s work on meaning in science (£) and Susan Leigh Star’s writings on certainty in science – were only incorporated after we had analysed the press conference transcript itself. This approach is incredibly common in the social sciences; Grounded Theory, the archetypal inductive approach, is quite possibly the most used research method. Inductive research is, however, far less common in the natural sciences (although some claim that Big Data is changing this).

When reading back the methods section of our Letter is noticeable that the word ‘inductive’ does not appear at all and the role of theory in our coding scheme (i.e. it played a largely insignificant role) isn’t as well explained as it might be. To a social scientific audience we don’t think this would be problematic but in this context we think it proved to be so; there is the strong sense that Jacobs et al think that we didn’t test our hypotheses rigorously but this is precisely because there weren’t any hypotheses. A perfect example of different answers arising from an unacknowledged difference in questions rather than anything fundamental about answers.

As calls (and pushes!) for interdisciplinary research intensify, our experience at the sharp end within a high-profile journal have taught us two basic but important lessons for future engagements: i) qualitative researchers need to be clear about what their methods are when they’re using when publishing in natural science journals, and ii) those more accustomed to hypothetic-deductive approaches need to at least be aware that qualitative methods frequently use different rules to those they most commonly encounter.

Improving climate change communications: Moving beyond scientific certainty.

Press conference screengrabThis post is co-authored with Warren Pearce and first appeared on the Making Science Public blog on the 08/06/2015. It is a summary of a paper which appeared in Nature Climate Change. You can check out the original version here: https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/06/08/ipcc-press-conference/ 

The paper was mentioned on Radio 4, written up in The Independent, and received (positive and negative!) write-ups on various blogs. A response to those comments is forthcoming.

In the last 25 years scientists have become increasingly certain that humans are responsible for changes to the climate. Nonetheless, there is a widespread feeling, memorably summed up in the Kudelka cartoon “None So Deaf”, that this certainty has failed to make climate change meaningful enough to prompt significant personal, political or policy responses. An opportunity to address this problem was presented by the publication of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in 2013, as leading climate scientists appeared before the world’s media at a Stockholm press conference. The press conference, one would imagine, is an ideal opportunity to make scientific findings intelligible and meaningful to non-scientific audiences and, in a new paper, we examine how scientists utilize this opportunity. What we found is that, in attempting to demonstrate the importance of climate change, scientists actually became inconsistent about ‘what counts’ as scientific evidence and this led to confusion and condemnation in the press.

In this blog post we’ll go through what happened in the press conference by detailing four stages in the intended process of making climate change meaningful. We’ve reproduced some figures for our article here because we think they make it much easier to follow the argument. The matrix for all of these figures places ‘meaning’ on the x-axis and ‘certainty’ on the y-axis. We won’t go into details here but, if you’re interested in the creation of the matrix please look at the method section of the article itself, or leave a comment below. Line numbers refer to a transcript of the press conference which is available in the paper’s supplementary information.

Phase One: Increasing certainty

FEB10 FIG 1 jpgSince the last IPCC report, certainty over the nature of climate change has increased and, unsurprisingly, scientists at the press conference stressed this increase:

…the evidence for human influence has grown since Assessment Report 4, it is now deemed extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming.” (Steiner L153–155).

However, and as noted above, academics from the socialsciences and humanities have argued that climate change has yet to attain enough public meaning to prompt significant personal, political and policy responses. Figure 1 thus shows a vertical shift along the y axis, representing increased certainty but also the fact that climate change continues to attract little public meaning.

Phase Two: Making climate change meaningful: the intention

FEB10 FIG 2 jpgWithin the press conference, scientists tried to use the certainty of climate change to demonstrate that it is meaningful and that ‘we’ must take action:

[The] report demonstrates that we must greatly reduce global emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change. (Jarraud L90–92).

In Fig. 2 we represent this move with a horizontal shift along the x axis (to position 3); certainty remains but attached to this certainty is a great deal of public meaning. We argue that this is what the scientists wanted to achieve in the press conference: retaining the certainty of the report while adding meaning.

Phase Three: Making climate change meaningful: the reality

FEB10 FIG 3 jpgThere was, however, an inconsistency in the argument of the scientists. Scientists consistently drew on short-term temperature increases in order to give climate change meaning:

…the decade 2001 onwards having been the hottest, the warmest that we have seen. (Pachauri L261–263).

However, the scientists also understood these short-term temperature increases to be less certain than the overall theory of climate change:

periods of less than around thirty years. . . are less relevant. (Stocker, L582–583).

Thus, the meaningful, short-term, temperature changes were actually incorporated at the expense of certainty. While the intended move was therefore to the top-right quadrant (position three), the actual move was to the bottom-right quadrant (position four): meaning had been added but at the expense of certainty.

Phase Four: Inconsistent attempt to maintain public meaning and certainty

FEB10 FIG4 jpgDrawing on meaningful information like ‘the hottest decade’ proved problematic for the scientists for it is hard to see why the short-term increase in temperature during ‘hottest decade’ is very different from the short-term decrease in temperature witnessed during the 15-year ‘pause’. Journalists repeatedly asked scientists about the pause and, in particular, how they could be increasingly certain about climate change in the face of such an uncertainty:

Your climate change models did not predict there was a slowdown in the warming. How can we be sure about your predicted projections for future warming? (Harrabin L560–562).

Faced with these questions, scientists insisted that short-term temperature changes were irrelevant for climate science:

we are very clear in our report that it is inappropriate to compare a short-term period of observations with model performance. (Stocker L794–796).

Given the type of statement we saw during phase three it is perhaps unsurprising that this retreat led to confusion, incoherence, and criticism within the press conference.

Conclusion: uncertainty is meaningful

…the scientific reductionism of climate change makes consensus possible, but the result is, in some sense, irrelevant. The things that can be known with scientific certainty are not necessarily the most important to know.(Cohen et al., 1998, p.361)

Climate change is an area where consistent attempts are made to communicate the certainty of the science. As a result, a spotlight on scientific uncertainties may be seen as unwelcome. However, in the run-up to the United Nations climate summit in Paris, making climate change meaningful remains a key challenge and our analysis of the press conference demonstrates that this meaning-making cannot be achieved by relying on scientific certainty alone. When trying to engage the public about climate science, communicators should be aware that there is a tension between expressing scientific certainty (and focusing on long-term trends) and making climate change meaningful (by focusing on short-term trends) and, what is more, that this tension may be unavoidable. A broader, more inclusive public dialogue will have to include crucial scientific details that we are far less certain about and these need to be embraced in order to make climate change meaningful.

Image credit: screengrab from video recording of IPCC press conference, Sep 30th, 2013.

Sickened by modern farming?

This post first appeared on Spiked! Online on the 11/08/2009 (i.e. a very long time ago).  You can check out the original bells and whistles version there: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/7254#.U7J_U5RdWQA


Agriculture has provided great benefits to mankind, yet greens are keen to blame it for the swine flu pandemic.

The emergence of agriculture was among the most important events in the history of humanity. Evolutionary psychologists pinpoint the rise of agriculture 12,000 years ago as the time at which conventional selection pressure ended and human evolution effectively stopped (1). Yet while agriculture has been central to the development of society, both materially and intellectually, there are now many voices doubting its benefits.

The impact of agriculture on society has been profound and goes beyond merely providing greater control over the production of food. For example, the storing of produce necessitated by early agriculture allowed humans to commence the record keeping, fact finding, and commercialisation that would eventually lead to what we now call science. Thus both the agriculture, and the science it brought with it, that began during this period had overwhelmingly positive consequences for humanity.

The green zeitgeist of recent times, however, argues that agriculture, and the domination over nature that it necessarily entails, is ethically dubious and destructive. Followers of James Lovelock’s Gaia theory, in particular, have a peculiarly apocalyptic outlook on the future of humanity following science and agriculture. These fears may broadly be given the name ‘Medean fears’. As a lead-article in New Scientist recently stated, Lovelock may have picked the wrong classical character to embody Nature: ‘If we were to choose a mythical mother figure to characterise the biosphere, it would more accurately be Medea, the murderous wife of Jason of the Argonauts. She was a sorceress, a princess – and a killer of her own children.’ (2)

However, the green movement prefers to claim Gaia for itself and assigns her evil alterego Medea for others; supporting ‘anti-nature’ agriculture makes one a Medean.

While there have always been anarcho-primitivists and others who have opposed agriculture and its associated effects, the rise of fatalistic environmentalism has allowed Medean fears to become decidedly mainstream, from Hollywood films such as The Happening (3) to popular scientific publications such as New Scientist(4). Medean fears are so commonplace that they seem to have entered the collective consciousness.

An excellent recent example of Medean fears is swine flu. The story of swine flu has been constructed to demonstrate that humans and their agricultural habits create pandemics. The very name ‘swine flu’ generates Medean fears, reflecting not just unease over animals, but farmyard animals in particular. It is as if Napoleon and Snowball from George Orwell’s Animal Farm had somehow stumbled upon chemical warfare.

The name swine flu itself reflects how the virus has been reinterpreted to reflect latter-day Medean fears. Pandemics of recent times have been given the titles ‘Asian’ or ‘Russian flu’ (1890s) ‘Spanish flu’ (1918-1920), ‘Asian flu’ (1957-1958), and ‘Hong Kong flu’ (1968-1969). What is it about swine flu that dictates that it should be named after the host animal and not the country of origin, as has previously been the case?

It seems unlikely that this is because no such candidate existed, for while fears over a pandemic were almost immediate, the virus was quite clearly depicted in the media as being solely from Mexico. Indeed, ‘Mexican flu’ was the moniker adopted by the Israelis when the name swine flu was deemed ‘unkosher’ (5). Further, the naming does not appear to be a decision based upon good will towards Mexico. As already discussed on spiked, Mexico has still been widely ostracised (6).

Even in the 1980s when it was apparent that HIV/AIDS had transferred to the human population from primates, it does not seem to have necessitated naming the virus ‘primate immunodeficiency virus’. Rather, this naming trend appears to be a new phenomenon, with both the bird and swine flu viruses being interpreted quite differently to their predecessors. Numerous articles now directly claim that agriculture is inherently dangerous. Those who already opposed agriculture have used swine flu to demonstrate the validity of their claims.

Viva!, a charity which campaigns for veganism and the end of farming issued a press release stating: ‘There is no mystery about this if you look at the conditions in which pigs are reared. They are fed a battery of drugs almost daily from weaning to slaughter to fend off a host of diseases. The consequence is that their immune systems are shot to pieces and their bodies have become a playground for bacteria and viruses. And sadly, it is much the same for poultry.’ (7) Guardian food writer Felicity Lawrence, wrote: ‘Just as an unsustainable financial system caused the current banking crisis, the intensive farming of animals is at the heart of the swine flu pandemic.’ (8)

Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, has called for swine flu to be the catalyst for more wide-ranging reforms upon agricultural legislature, lest more severe Medean repercussions be experienced: ‘As evidence mounts of the links between the increasing intensification of pig and poultry production, and the spread of these animal-based epidemics that can be lethal to humans, it is even more urgent that ministers set up the thoroughgoing commission of inquiry which the Green Party first called for after the avian flu outbreaks a few years ago.’ (9)

Swine flu is being used as a means to demonstrate that agriculture is not a means to feed the world, but the cause of global catastrophe. Pandemics, however, including those associated with animals, have been present for centuries (as the Black Death illustrates) and that even in modern times zoonoses (infections that jump from animals to humans) have occurred in wild as well as captive populations.

These statements and many others reflecting the broader Medean fear are a cause for great concern. The rise of agriculture has never been smooth or without serious repercussions. But the notion that it either never was, or no longer is, of more benefit than harm deserves to be quickly dismissed. Medean fearmongers spread concern regarding immunisation, xenotransplantation, genetic modification, and advancements in fish farming that all have the potential to further enhance the utility of agriculture. Instead of celebrating these techniques for expanding agricultural opportunities, Medean fear mongers give us mysticism, fatalism, and an intense fear of utilising natural resources available to us.

This fear of Medea will ultimately have far more devastating consequences than swine flu because we rely on agriculture to supply our food. Misplaced and often mystical concerns which suggest we should shy away from intensive, mass-production techniques and new technology will have dreadful repercussions for humanity.

Kandinsky, New Objectivity, and ripping apart the furniture

This post first appeared on the Making Science Public blog on the 19/06/2014.  You can check out the original bells and whistles version there: http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2014/06/19/kandinsky-new-objectivity-and-ripping-apart-the-furniture/


Circles, Squares, and nonrepresentational forms in Munich

Recently I visited Munich and, at the behest of a friend who knows far more about these things than me, spent a morning wandering around the Lenbachhaus art gallery[i]. The top floor of this spectacular building is largely taken up with paintings from the Blue Rider movement, which was active around Munich from around 1910-1914. Perhaps the most famous member of the blue riders was Wassily Kandisky and the Lenbachhaus offers a fantastic array of his work.

As you walk around the rooms of the Lenbachhaus you can see Kandisky’s work change quite remarkably; in the first years of the twentieth century, in paintings such as Der Blaue Reiter (1903), you can clearly make out stylised, yet certainly recognisable, buildings, trains, and – of course – horses. Ten years later, however, when Kandisky was fashioning his ‘impressions’ and ‘abstractions’, the outside world, at least in any recognisable form, completely disappears in a haze of colour. In the words of the Lenbachhaus, Kandisky’s improvisations:

 offer an especially clear illustration of his personal path to abstraction: to Kandinsky’s mind, abstraction meant a sustained effort to conceal and encode representational content in order to convey spiritual ideas in physical form by unfolding their “inner harmony.””[ii]

Kandisky is not turning away from the outside world here, and the Lenbachhaus note that although these paintings “…appear largely nonrepresentational…they were inspired by impressions of nature outside of him”. The impressions are, nonetheless, undoubtedly harder to read, nonintuitive, and (as the aforementioned friend discovered) can leave the uninitiated impressed but slightly confused.

What was particularly interesting about this gallery, however, was that the Blue Rider movement was, quite deliberately, juxtaposed with paintings from the New Objectivity movement. These paintings could not have been more different. Christian Schad’s Operation (1929) shows appendix surgery in photorealistic detail. Josef Scharl’s The Fallen Solider (1932) brings to mind Otto Dix (another artist associated with this movement) in its stark depiction of death in the trenches during World War 1. Without claiming that I’m offering anything like a definitive, or indeed accurate, reading of these works it seemed to me that these artists, who had grown up and often served during WW1, were saying: ‘it is all well and good to play with these experimental forms, aiming to reach a deep truth or new understanding through nonrepresentation, but The Somme is too important for that. The Somme must be shown in the cold, horrific light of day for the mass slaughter that it was’.

Circling the Square in Nottingham

Shortly after I’d returned from Munich I helped out at the conference we held here in Nottingham entitled Circling the Square[iii]. As anyone who attended that conference (or who has followed the ensuing blogs) will know, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the types of knowledge, and the forms that knowledge is presented in, in relation to both the natural and social sciences. One strand of this debate has been a strident criticism of social scientific attempts to ‘deconstruct’ the facts of the natural sciences, in particular quantum physics and global warming. To me, much of this criticism strikes a chord with New Objectivity: it is fine for social scientists to warble away when concerning themselves with inconsequential areas of study, but the straightforward, empirical reality of quantum physics cannot be denied (as a contributor to this blog has told me, our microelectronics industry would be in poor shape without it) and global warming, like death in the trenches, should not be denied – the consequences are just too dire for the kind of obscurantism we associate with social scientists (and blue riders…).

In a lovely article[iv], Derek Edwards and colleagues refer to these two arguments, respectively as ‘furniture’ (the reality of which cannot be denied) and ‘death’ (the reality of which should not be denied) arguments against relativism. These types of questions certainly provoke soul-searching among social scientists: should I deconstruct the claims of climate scientists if I believe in this mode of analysis, or does the potential uptake of those arguments by climate sceptics necessitate that I stop? Does my refusal to apply post-structuralist theory to quantum physics demonstrate a laudable restraint or a failure of nerve? Is there space for a blue rider in Verdun?

Of course, I don’t have answers to these questions but, in the hyperbolic fall out of this conference, it’s interesting to see parallels elsewhere. Indeed, I think that is one of the values of social scientific analyses in these areas; these methods and theories might help us think about some of these issues – or ourselves – differently, provide new insights, or perhaps simply provide some pleasure. What is more, it is perhaps worth remembering that, in the Lenbachhaus circa 2014, there remains space for both.


[i] http://www.lenbachhaus.de/index.php?id=10&L=1

[ii] http://www.lenbachhaus.de/collection/the-blue-rider/kandinsky/?L=1

[iii] http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/conference/fac-sci/circling-the-square/index.aspx

[iv] Edwards, D., Ashmore, M. & Potter, J., 1995. Death and Furniture: The rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8(25-49), pp.25–49.