In Defense of the Humanities and the F-Word

I'm starting to hate the word feminist. It's becoming one of those words that carries fast-acting shock value every time someone utters it. You know, kind of like the actual F-word and those other raunchy ones. I'm starting to hate the feeling that every time someone says that word, they are directing it at me, expecting that I need to come up with some sort of defense for claiming to be a feminist. Some sort of defense for my life choice to study gender and its connections to culture within the fields of psychology and anthropology. I'm tired of people treading on eggshells around me because they're afraid of offending me whenever they make a comment or joke about women. I enjoy a "barefoot and pregnant" joke as much as the next person, I promise.

But the one that really took the cake this week was...well, let me see if I can paraphrase:

"Feminism is pointless. It was good back when women needed to get the right to vote, yeah, I can see that. But now it's just done. There's no need for it. All men were created equal and that's that. All that study in the humanities and everything, it's just so dumb. We don't need it."

You would be so proud of me. I kept my mouth shut and just respectfully listened to the conversation die off. (Mostly because I've gotten so tired of hearing this kind of stuff.) But I've had some time to sit and stew over some of this.

I'm sorry, but at what point did it become pointless to study humanity? When did it become stupid to study the way people interact with each other, the way that humans connect and form groups and develop and grow and think? Why is study in the "hard sciences" so much more valuable and worthwhile to the world? Guess who gave rise to, through use of socially constructed language, the ideas in their raw form of centimeters and neurons and particles and mitochondria? Humanity. Guess who gave them names and used socially constructed methods (and, of course, often divinely inspired) to experiment on these things and come to learn more about the world? Humanity. Guess who studies language, culture, cognition, and the processes behind which God drives us to be able to experiment on these "tangible" and therefore "more valid" objects of study? Social scientists and those in the humanities...in other words, humanity.

Don't get me wrong. Scientific development throughout all of history has been absolutely incredible and mind-boggling. I'm simply suggesting that we stop looking down at other disciplines of study and label them as less worthwhile, prestigious, or intelligent because they study humanity in a less "tangible" context. I value learning how to think critically, break down arguments, and theoretically back up arguments. And if you can learn how to use these techniques in any field of study, you will only be better for it. How is it that we've come to see people who study mathematics, medicine, engineering, and other typically high-paying fields of study as the real scholars of society? Why, when prompted to name humanity's greatest developments, do we list off medical technology, the latest electronics, and modes of transportation when rarely does anyone mention developments in literature, music, and progress in modern therapy methods?

Let me illustrate an example of the importance of study in the social sciences.

Let's say, for instance, that you are a doctor desiring to join Doctors Without Borders. You must have a sound understanding of the local ideologies concerning the western biomedical model and how that fits into their scope of traditional practices in order to best approach the locals in developing an agreeable system of medical practice. Who does this type of work? Most often anthropologists.

In one of the most well-known books on Hmong studies, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall, Anne Fadiman recounts stories relating the dissonance between Hmong beliefs and the use of the Western biomedical system by American “acculturation” of Hmong immigrants to the United States. She points out that a Hmong American individual suffering from a physical illness is more likely to stop taking a medication preceding the prescribed date due to the notion that if the medication hasn’t proven effective by this point, he or she should seek a new method of curing. In traditional Hmong shamanism, when any factor poses a threat to health or well-being, it must be solved with an appropriate method. If such a method (i.e. a hu plig ritual to call the soul and diagnose the problem) proves ineffective, then an alternate option must be sought out and implemented. In this case, if the medication doesn’t work within what is deemed an appropriate time frame, the method would be terminated and a new one likewise implemented. (If you want to read an excellent piece expanding on this topic, I will refer you to one of my professor's publications entitled "Is It the Spirit or the Body?": Syncretism of Health Beliefs Among Hmong Immigrants to Alaska.) Therefore, research on Hmong conceptions of health care and spiritual matters is needed to facilitate doctor-patient communication and mutual understanding. 

It's all about understanding people to better their lives and the way that society functions. This kind of work takes months and years of interviewing, administering other types of informative tests, coding and analyzing data, writing, designing appropriate systematic methods of collecting data, and attaining a sound theoretical understanding of research and communication to make a difference in this world. I consider this one of our most important methods of science. 

If you're curious about what I want to do, then...I want to employ these types of methods in a study of international development and involvement in cultural gender issues - like issues surrounding eradication female genital cutting, for instance. Are we really going about this the right way, and in a lot of places, does it even really need to be eradicated? In my opinion, the answer to both of these questions is no, for now at least. (At some point in the future, I'll probably write about this very topic on this very blog.)

I study humanity. And I also have a passion for studying gender. Why? Because from the moment I was born, my gender affected everything about my life. I look back on every major trial I've had in life, and some portion of it has to do with my gender (and others' genders) and how I've come to fit into society and my conception of humanity. And I believe that every individual's gender - male or female - impacts their struggles, their ideas, their contributions, you name it. Gender is a divine characteristic of our identities as children of God. What reason is there that I can't be fascinated by how it operates differently in various cultures?

As far as feminism is concerned, I claim to be a feminist because historically, women have almost always been disadvantaged. And I want to help individuals who suffer from certain gendered disadvantages - or more importantly, from perceptions of presumed gendered disadvantages - overcome their trials and reach their fullest potential. Note that I do not only mean women. Of course men suffer from gendered struggles as well. And to do that, I need to study theory and gender and counseling and culture and writing and....humanity. 

I don't hate men. Actually....I love men. I want to marry one someday. And have babies with him. And be a mother...even be a stay-at-home mom for a time and support him in his dreams while I live mine. I don't believe in the Priesthood ordination of women because men and women are different and we have different roles. And I don't understand all of this, but I have faith that God will do what needs to be done to take care of any and all of this. Do I dare say this and be a feminist? Yes.

And for those who believe I went on some feminist rampage throughout Thailand to "bring down patriarchy" or whatever, this is what I was really doing. Please read my abstract here for the thesis I'm currently writing.

Dissonance between traditional Hmong beliefs and American mental health services is evident in the United States. Current family therapy ideologies (especially in cities with a high population of Hmong immigrants) must expand to include a greater understanding of Hmong kinship practices and traditional beliefs. In order to examine the importance of such factors, this study serves as a person-centered ethnography based in a village of northern Thailand geared toward understanding the factors upon which Hmong women in a polygynous context tend to base their decisions to commit to marriage. All three case studies (one divorced, one separated, and one cohabiting with the husband and second wife) decided to remain committed to polygynous husbands primarily for reasons involving their children’s relationships to their clans, ritual practices, and foundations of belief. Throughout the course of the interviews, the prevailing notion suggested that within the traditional Hmong kinship system, children benefit more from remaining in close proximity and emotional contact with the patrilineal clan to facilitate functional relationships and learn clan-specific ancestral practices. In these cases, the well-being of the children becomes a greater factor in a woman’s decision to remain married, as opposed to the relationship between husband and wife. In addition, the concept of karma plays a major role in Hmong women’s beliefs about their station in life and marriage. These underlying decision-making factors must be more heavily weighted in the context of family therapy to yield greater benefits for Hmong people seeking help for marital and familial conflict.

Anyway, I hope I've stirred up a little bit of thought in your mind, at the very least. If anything, I just want this blog to be a place where people learn how to be just a tiny bit more open-minded.