Annotated Bibliography

1. Walsh, Bryan. "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food." Time 31 Aug. 2009: 30-37. Time. Time, 21 Aug. 2009. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1917726-1,00.html.

   This article was a cover story in Time Magazine that aimed at revealing the high costs of producing large amounts of meat at low prices. Walsh explains that the meat industry has improved since the time of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, yet it is beginning to take a turn for the worse. The animals are caged in close quarters in their own waste and injected with antibiotics that present many human health concerns. He mentions how industrialized CAFO's (concentrated-animal feeding operations) allow for lower meat prices, but they also contribute to air and water pollution from animal waste. The article focuses on the negative consequences from the increasing efficiency and speed of the meat industry; however, Walsh offers a few solutions, such as replacing the large scale industries with more small scale, sustainable production methods. Walsh compliments documentaries such as Food, Inc. and journalists Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan for their attempts at revealing the truth behind today's meat industry, just as Upton Sinclair did in 1906.

2. "Michael Pollan." Interview. PBS. PBS, Apr. 2002. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/pollan.html.

   Frontline's Modern Meat interviewed investigative journalist Michael Pollan on his experience of buying a cow and tracking it's journey through the beef industry. In the interview, Michael Pollan discusses how the new cattle system is all about reducing the time it takes for a cow to grow by changing their diet to grain and corn rather than grass and injecting them with antibiotics. He claims that "In capitalism, time is money." The cow's rumen, usually not an acidic environment, becomes more acidic when the cow is fed grain, allowing for certain microbes such as E. coli to become tolerant of acidic pH levels. The pathogens spread from manure to the meat and into our stomachs; however, the acids in our digestive organs would not be able to kill of the pathogens because they have adapted to an acidic environment. Michael Pollan states that although the beef industry has made some improvements, the system is fragile because contaminated meat is still getting through.

Some of my sources...

• Modern Meat

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/

• America's Food Crisis and How to Fix It

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=58234c5b-0e75-4cb7-a73e-50063436ac46%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=122&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=43886328

Thesis....

• Thesis Question 1: What are the negative consequences of the actions taken in slaughterhouses?
• Thesis Statement 1: Although slaughterhouses are important in the preparation of many meat products that enter our market, some of the processes and techniques utilized in slaughterhouses result in negative consequences for the consumers, the butchers, and the animals.

• Thesis Question 2: Will shark finning and whaling lead to an extinction of these animals in the future?
• Thesis Statement 2: The shark finning and whaling industries provide much of the animal protein consumed in parts of Asia; however, the continual, mass slaughter of both sharks and whales will deplete and eventually exticnt many species of these marine animals.

• Thesis Question 3: How do invasive species affect native organisms and the habitats that they invade?
• Thesis Statement 3: Plants and animals not native to the U.S. find a way to adapt to their new surroundings, but these invasive species produce damaging effects to the land and sea habitats and jeopardize the survival of native land and sea species.

Possible Introduction/Summary... maybe

Our society has come a long way from monarchial rule in which one figure had all the power. Power still exists in present times, but now it lies in knowledge, images, and the connections between individuals. Has our society really grown from this shift in power though?  In his article “Panopticism”, Michel Foucault describes the Panopticon, a building with a large tower in the center and individual cells around its periphery, and how its architectural composition allows for inmates to always be visible without knowing if they are being watched at any specific time. He explains that this makes the Panopticon a disciplinary mechanism that takes power from a single individual and spreads it through to the relations between the observer and the observed. Foucault argues that this disciplinary mechanism can be used to make individuals more efficient members of society whether it is a worker, student, soldier, or criminal. This is why factories, schools, barracks, and prisons all have the same architectural design. To John Berger, power lies in the image. He believes that an image has power when it links the past and the present, allowing individuals to better understand the relationship of social status between the painter and the subjects. In his article “Ways of Seeing”, he argues that reproduction has made art available and valueless, causing images to lose power. When an image becomes powerless, its link to history becomes insubstantial, and the past becomes obscured or mystified. Kanye West’s song “POWER” expresses his belief that no single race should have power over another in the twenty first century. The video shows West as a pharaoh surrounded by a harem of lighter skinned females and being attacked by lighter skinned warriors with swords while a single sword hangs above his head. Kanye uses images to portray the struggles in gaining success when power lies in racial relations. All of these texts refer to the presence of power lying in the connections between individuals, and they convey that it is important to understand history in order to improve our society; however, none of the texts discuss what will become of power relations in the future. Does technology alter where power lies? I believe that technology effects power relations by allowing individuals to observe others through social networking and allowing individuals to reproduce and manipulate images and information. Technology disestablishes disciplinary power which socially separates our society.


   and then I will discuss how facebook makes people both observers and the observed whoch gets rid of the power relations. There is also cyber bullying because no power relations are present. This makes our society morally inefficient. Then I can discuss things like photo editing programs and wikipedia which lets people post possibly false information. People manipulate images and take away from the power the images have.

Panopticism

     In the time of the plague, inhabitants were quarantined to their houses and forced to appear at the windows so life and death can be reviewed. This process allowed power to be "exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure," and it was a "compact model of the disciplinary mechanism" (283).The Panopticon is an architectural representation of the process of inserting an individual in a fixed place and monitoring them at all times. Similar to observing quarantined inhabitants, the Panopticon allows for individuals the be visible at all times from their cells that are around a central watch tower. Foucault states, "the surveillance is permanent in its effects even if it is discontinuous in its action" (288). He is trying to say that the central tower creates a feeling of being watched even if no supervisor is in the tower. Therefore, individuals will assume they are always being watched and will continuously act the appropriate way. The Panopticon "should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it" and "the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they themselves are the bearers" (288). This shows how the Panopticon is a disciplinary mechanisms. It takes power away from a single individual and spreads power through the relations between people, or in this case the relation between the inmate and the central tower. By putting power into the relations, the Panopticon allows discipline to be individualized. The function of the Panopticon can be used in many ways, and it will "produce homogeneous effects of power" (289). Foucault explains that putting power into relations will increase efficiency in educational, military, industrial, an medical fields. This architectural disciplinary machine can improve the efficiency of a worker or a student, or it can improve the morality of a criminal. Foucault expresses that the design of the Panopticon is used in each of theses types of institutions by stating, "Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?" (309)

Hello, my name is Michael Pollan

     Kyle Madsen brought up interesting arguments against my article “Why Bother?” One of his points was that the angle of vision I take on dealing with climate change is too dominant to gain acceptance by neutral readers. It is true that I have an intense angle of vision and use dramatic language, but I shock a neutral audience with an extreme solution. Overwhelming a neutral audience with an impossible proposition will cause them to accept a more neutral solution such as Kyle’s proposition of sustainable consumerism. This technique will get a semi-concerned individual out of the “why bother?” mentality. The suggestion to grow individual gardens as the best solution to climate change makes simpler actions such as “going green” look like much more reasonable solutions that an individual can bother to take.

     Kyle refers to the language I use in my article as “occasionally alarmist and overly dramatic”. My purpose for this is to create an extremist and almost satirical tone. Just as Jonathon Swift suggest eating babies to ease the economic troubles of poor Irish families, I propose planting individual gardens to abolish the specialization in society in a somewhat of a similar satirical tone. The sarcasm is scattered throughout my article such as when I say, “Have you looked into the eyes of a climate scientist recently? They look really scared.” Or when I say “Will you get a load of that zucchini?!” This combination of satire and focusing on one complicated solution causes the audience to recognize the wrong in saying “why bother?” and helps then to see what they can do to fix our society and slow the rate that climate is changing.

Geertz Analysis

                When the Balinese accepted Clifford Geertz as a co-villager into their society, he was given an opportunity to see and analyze their culture through a Balinese point of view. Bali is a friendly natured society that has been well studied, so it is no surprise that Geertz was instantly attracted to the fury and violence of the less acknowledged Balinese cockfights. In this article, Geertz provides an anthropological analysis of the cockfights and their representation of the status hierarchy that is internalized by the Balinese and veiled by a seemingly friendly and equal society.

                Geertz’s writing maintains an enjoyable balance of personal anecdotes and factual information and rhetorically appeals to his audience. It is clear that Geertz has an anthropological angle of vision towards the cockfights, and it is expressed through his references and footnotes. He acknowledges the work of fellow anthropologists and sociologists, using their terms and thoughts to add build his own ideas. By including the information from other studies on the Balinese, Geertz appeals to ethos and adds to his credibility and trustworthiness. His use of complex language suggests that he is targeting a more educated audience, such as social scientists; however, Geertz includes a personal story in the introduction scatters humor throughout the article, allowing his message to still be understood by the average public. He appeals to logos by presenting data that gives an in depth background of the Balinese cockfights, allowing him to formulate a logical argument.

                I agree with Geertz’s main argument that the cockfights metaphorically express the status hierarchy of Balinese society. Their society is mostly friendly and equal without sexual differentiation; however, cockfights are a unisexual activity where a villager’s dignity, honor, and status are momentarily affected. Rather than allow it to dictate the village, true class warfare is sublimated into a more socially acceptable fight between two chickens; however, there are some things that I disagree with Geertz on.

                Although I agree with Geert’z main argument, I think that he may overestimate the magnitude with which the cockfights represent social status. While it may have a part in the reason the Balinese villager’s participate in cockfights, other factors may also have an impact. Geertz mentions that the Balinese despise all animalistic behaviors or actions and fear the dark powers of animalistic demons, yet he only briefly explains that cockfighting may be a sacrifice for such evil. These facts provide a new angle of vision that express a different purpose for the Balinese cockfights. He addresses this alternate view but does not refute it as the main purpose for cockfighting, so this information seems to conflict with his argument.

                Geertz’s took an anthropological point of view on the cockfights; therefore, he saw how they were a representation of the Balinese society. As an animal science major, my views differ from Geert’z significantly. I would view the cockfights through the impacts they had on the cocks. Geertz fails to mention any moral values relating to the animal cruelty involved in cockfighting. In fact, he describes the fury of the cockfights as “beautiful” and “abstract”. It’s as if he disregards the concept of right and wrong when analyzing the cockfights, and does not see the abuse of the cocks as a problem. This article challenges my beliefs because Geertz and I have differing angles of vision.

                I may not agree with some of his points, but Geertz’s article does a good job at sparking intellectual thought about one’s own culture. Geertz takes the simple act of cockfighting and looks at its deeper meaning, using that to define the social and cultural establishments of Balinese society. This has allowed me to think about what actions in my culture may also have deeper meanings. The article shows that looking at an action from a different angle of vision could reveal an underlying purpose for the action. Geertz does not jump to the conclusion that the Balinese fight cocks just for entertainment and gambling. He believed that the cockfights had a specific purpose, and he sought to discover it. I believe that his article stimulates an interest in discovering ambiguous meanings by taking different views on a subject rather than the seemingly obvious views. He explains that societies have different interpretations of themselves. This also makes me wonder what my actions say about myself and my community. Are my actions representations of the struggles and success I face in life, and do different people interpret my actions differently based on their points of view?

                Geertz gained access into the lives of the Balinese villagers and was introduced to their cockfighting through their eyes and their interpretations. He was able to “read” the cockfights as though they were words in the collective text of the Balinese culture. When analyzing the cockfights, Geertz did not see them as just a way for the Balinese to entertain themselves. Instead, Geertz saw the emotion in it and saw the expression of the allusive caste system of Balinese society.