She reeks of “more Indian than thou”
Kavin Senapathy on Vandana Shiva:
Undoubtedly a controversial albeit prominent Indian public figure, the stately, self-proclaimed food activist and feminist rakes in big bucks to rival the incomes of doctors and business moguls, and does so on the premise of benevolence. Shiva’s website, which notes that Time Magazine honored the activist as an environmental “hero” in 2003, describes her as working alongside peasants; images of Shiva posing on Indian farms litter the internet. Demanding $40,000 a pop and round trip business class air fare from New Delhi for her promotional talks, she has achieved the deplorable yet amazing feat of appropriating her own culture. Though defined in varying ways, the term “cultural appropriation” usually describes the use and adulteration of elements of one culture by another. In Shiva’s case, she has managed to exploit and demean her own culture under the guise of standing up for her countrymen, as a means to advance her anti-biotechnology agenda.
40 k per talk?! Wow. And all she has to do is argue for less productive agriculture in India.
Vandana Shiva’s exotification of the country and India-as-victim messaging does her few favors in the Indian community, while her butchering of science has seen her earn monikers like “Luddite”, “dangerous fabulist” and even part of the “lunatic fringe.”
…
To me, an Indian-American daughter of immigrants, Shiva’s appropriation of her own culture is among the most obscene, offensive tactics in the activist’s repertoire. She reeks of “more Indian than thou”, which colors her mannerisms and shapes her messaging, effectively endowing her with a je ne sais quoi, leaving many non-Indian westerners accepting her without question as the voice of the Indian David against the Big Bad Biotech Goliath, while others presumably refrain from doubting her seeming authority for fear of appearing racist. A clever tactic, indeed.
This acceptance of Indian thieves of their own culture must stop. Farmers like Narhari Pawar, science advocates like Venkat Aditya, and scientists like Rajini Rao and Balasubramanian Ponnuswami are just a handful of folks fed up with the twisting of their culture by fellow Indians for no more than ideological, non evidence-based agendas. No doubt, they are but a representative sliver of those sharing the sentiment.
I blame the hippies. They bought into that whole “India=spiritual” bullshit, and they passed it on to everyone else.
One very irksome element of Shiva’s influence is that she does it under the false mantle of scientific expertise. Defenders of Vandana Shiva will invariably attempt to deflect criticism of her positions by declaring “But she’s a Scientist! She has a PhD in Quantum Physics!”
In fact no, she does not:
(source)
Mind you, if her concerns were evidence-based and factually accurate, it wouldn’t matter what sort of degree she had, but the fact that she’s wrong AND making an argument from authority (directly or through her supporters) is noteworthy.
What Jen just said.
Also, PhD does not equal scientist. I earned a PhD, but I do not go around telling people that I’m a scientist, even though computer science (which is my field/degree) has the word “science” in its very name. I’m a software engineer; I spend all day designing and writing software. (As an aside, there is a long-standing joke that “if a field has the word ‘science’ in it, then it isn’t”—a joke applicable both to me, as well as to Vandana Shiva).
Moreover, holding a PhD in X doesn’t mean that a person knows the first thing about Y, or—much less—is an *expert* in Y. (Or even the entirety of X.)
I worked in big biotech for nearly 20 years. I encountered research scientists at the company who were creationists, anti-vaccination (none 100% opposed, just against some of them or believers in the “too many too soon” fallacy), and amazingly enough, anti-GMO/pro-“organic.”Once some scientists get outside of their area of expertise, all bets are off.
Wow, that’s really low – that she calls herself a physicist when she’s not one.
Unless…is there any chance she got a PhD in physics and then one in philosophy of science? People do get two, or even three – Patricia Churchland, Meera Nanda, Massimo Pigliucci.
Yikes. Reading that article by Jon Entine (whom I corresponded with just yesterday, because he wanted to republish Tom De Gregori’s article) I learn that Shiva says it’s genocide.
Huh. Just a couple of days ago I saw someone accusing Germaine Greer of genocide.
People really need to stop doing that.
Once I looked up every CV of hers I could find because I kept seeing this claim about her credentials. No Physics PhD from any institution is on record.
Alas, there seem to be no negative consequences for ridiculous hyperbole in this movement. They know they’re spouting BS, because they get called on it repeatedly, but several of them justify it openly through a greater good argument because it’s ok to lie if your cause is noble enough. No one ever seems to address why such fabrication is necessary if you truly have cause to believe that GMOs are harmful.
I suppose that it’s possible that she earned a PhD in physics first. Bell’s Theorem is a rather obscure thing outside of QM, and not easy to get your mind around without at least some training in physics (and QM). Although within physics, Bell’s is indeed a fascinating and huge deal, so maybe basic introduction to QM is all that is needed.
(As an aside, Bell’s Theorem really is very profound. To summarize it, clumsily, it essentially says that either there is an objective reality (that physical objects have real, inherent, underlying properties) OR superluminal/faster-than-light interactions are not possible, i.e. either our existence is objectively real and faster-than-light interactions are possible, or objective reality doesn’t exist and faster-than-light interactions are not possible—but not both. Bell started with the assumption of a real objective reality and the impossibility of superluminal interactions, and derived a paradox that could be empirically measure; those measurements have been done, and Bells’ has been experimentally verified several times, albeit with provisos in all but the most recent experimental verification. The implications of it are obviously fairly mind-bending and profound, so you can see why it might be appropriate grist for a philosophy thesis.)
How very circular.
“It’s ok to lie in such an urgent cause.”
“But what cause is there if your facts are wrong?”
“It doesn’t matter if they’re wrong when the cause is so urgent.”
“__________”
Not unless it was at super seekrit Black Ops Physics School.
Cross reference this:
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Vandana-Shiva
with this:
(from her own website, which I’m not linking to)
And again, it doesn’t matter that she isn’t actually a physicist. What matters (to me, anyway) is that she’s egregiously dishonest about it.
Oh, I know, but I hate that business of pretending you are when you aren’t. I hate it when people call me “Doctor” or refer to me as a philosopher, and I always rush to set the record straight.
MrFancyPants:
What? No.
The philosophical issue at hand is determinism (aka ¬”free will”), not objective reality.
You misread what I said. I wasn’t talking about the philosophical conclusions that can be made.
The issue underlying Bell’s is the existence (or not) of local hidden variables (i.e. qualities that exist objectively) in relation to locality. Bell started from the debate over EPR with the assumptions of local hidden variables and locality and derived probabilities that could be empirically measured. That’s what I was trying to describe–admittedly clumsily. The philosophical implications his predicted probabilities not matching measured reality bring the starting assumptions into question, and that is what leads people to talk about free will/determinism and the possible lack thereof.
Last comment on this digression, MrFancyPants: a complementary datum is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
(Even when information is available, it’s contingent. And it gets worse… consider the philosophical implications of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems!)
I have a BA in physics. We discussed Bell’s theorem in our QM course. So I suppose by Shiva’s logic I could go around telling people I have a philosophy degree?
Actually, we also discussed Bell’s theorem in the philosophy of physics course I took, and I don’t think that class had any physics or math prerequisites. Non-locality is a mind-bender, but you don’t need even an undergraduate degree in physics to understand Bell’s conceptually. And I don’t remember exactly, but I don’t think the math was that difficult either. So yes, it is insulting and dishonest for her to claim to be a physicist.
Shiva doesn’t appear to have any relevant qualifications whatsoever, even Nobel Laureates have made asses of themselves when they have wandered outside their area of expertise.
I’m also curious to know what caste Shiva is and consequently how ‘closely’ she works with peasant farmers, one fact is certain, it’s a nice little earner.
RJW, a quick Google shows she ostensibly deprecates caste:
OTOH:
@16 John Morales
Interesting info.
Leaving aside the question as to whether or not Shiva is a card-carrying Brahmin, she certainly qualifies as an elitist by my criteria.
“Shiva and other green elites attacked modernization and development in India as a calamitous foreign imposition on the rural poor..” Jeez, perhaps the rural poor could speak for themselves.
I wonder how many of the members of those “green elites” actually live by subsistence agriculture, and how often do they consult the rural poor.
I first encountered Shiva when I was in my Ph.D. in Environmental Science. We had to take two graduate level classes in Environmental Ethics, and she was the darling of the entire philosophy department. I didn’t get along to well in that department – they pretty much threw science out the window, and would happily have thrown the science students in the class out the window with it if they thought they could get away with it. They spent a great deal of time basically telling us to shut up, we didn’t understand what science was as well as they did. And they believed this – we were blinded by our science background, and couldn’t see what it was we were actually doing, and we had no knowledge at all how the world really worked.
I am very glad this was not my first or only encounter with philosophy; I would find it impossible to respect the field at all. Many of my fellow science students know nothing of philosophy except what they got in those classes. As a result, they would be more than happy to throw the entire field of philosophy out the window. It reached the lowest point when one of the “hero” writers claimed that a goose was ashamed after having sex (that was a bit much even for the philosophy students; a hero toppled that night).
Quite honestly this has been pretty much the norm in my encounters with philosophers. I’ve met and interacted with a few wonderful, thoughtful philosophers over the years, and thus have resisted the urge to write off the entire field. However, there seems to be a fairly widespread sense of superiority among some in that field; a tendency to establish a hierarchy in which the philosophers are set up as the arbiters of what constitutes worthy scientific pursuit, while the natural scientists tinker thoughtlessly, don’t understand the impact of what they are doing, and must therefore seek the counsel of the philosophers to set them right.
It’s too bad, too, because I can see where there could be some opportunities for some fruitful collaborations; situations where having diverse philosophical input alongside scientific strategizing would really enrich the experience.
Jen Phillips @19
(1) “while the natural scientists tinker thoughtlessly, don’t understand the impact of what they are doing, and must therefore seek the counsel of the philosophers to set them right.’
How often would scientists “seek the counsel of philosophers”? Probably as often as they consult theologians, perhaps.
(2) “having diverse philosophical input alongside scientific strategizing would really enrich the experience.”
That could also lead to dysfunction, that is precisely the problem with economics. What do you mean by ‘strategizing’, setting priorities?
RJW @ 20:
Re: (1)– various disciplines of science can & do intersect with various disciplines of philosophy. The OP demonstrates this with physics. Shiva’s specific misrepresentations don’t nullify the possibility of *any* useful discussions between the two disciplines interested in quantum mechanics or relativity or whatever. Philosophical input is often sought and applied in the biomedical realm, in environmental science, in any discipline doing research on animals.
Re: (2)– Of course it *could* lead to dysfunction, but dysfunctional collaborations are a rather broad human phenomenon that we can’t entirely pin on philosophers :) I’ve experienced plenty of dysfunction just working with people in my own unphilosophical discipline, I’m sorry to say.
To use the biomedical field as an example, scientists and clinicians have pioneered stem cell research, organ harvesting, genome sequencing, diagnostic tools for horrible, incurable diseases, and much more. The input of bioethicists is valuable in all these situations in order to get a wider perspective of what cultural or societal issues are in play outside of the laboratory walls. That type of strategizing to set priorities and make policy is completely standard at institutional and federal levels, and I think those contributions are valuable to the field.
I do animal research with potential applications for human health. Molecular techniques that create targeted changes at the DNA level are in play right now in model systems (animals or cell culture) and will soon be promoted for use on human patients. Philosophers are already part of that conversation, and will continue to provide input going forward.
Jen Phillips @21
Thanks for the reply, I should have been more explicit, I understand and accept the value of philosophical consultation in regard to ethical considerations, particularly in the biomedical sciences. However my point was in regard to the value of philosophical input into scientific theory and practice outside the realm of ethics e.g. cosmology.
@RJW
I’m not an expert, but there are a number of Physics disciplines in which flexible thinking appears to be an asset. Obviously these fields would be just as vulnerable to bad thinking as any other, but I can see potential value in adding qualified philosophers to the think tank when formulating/contemplating a complex theory, e.g.
Mind you, most physicists I know personally wouldn’t have much use for this collaboration, but I maintain that there could be some potential benefit in certain situations.