Seong Im Hong
MHC 200 – 005
Professor Alexandratos
September 3, 2012
Week One Reflection — Introduction to MHC 200
I expected to greatly enjoy this class, and my expectations were proved to be right. I loved Professor Alexandrato’s dramatic opening to the new semester, which was quite different from most first days of classes. The projected workload, however, is daunting, as was the thick syllabus packet. Granted, most of it was describing the options we had for later project. Still, the fact that Dr. Alexandratos put so much work into the syllabus kind of pulls me in a contract in which I must put as much effort into my work as he did. It’s an unidirectional contract that I made up, but it holds weight in my mind nevertheless.
I liked the slides and the presentations. I do, however, have a criticism. I thought that the juxtaposition of McDonald’s burger and the rainforest was too emotionally charged.
Don’t get me wrong– I do agree with Professor Alexandratos that the rainforest is far more important than a cheap Big Mac, but I am always weary of dichotomic ideas that play on our emotions. For example, I think most people are brought up now to be disgusted by or at least ashamed of fast food. I think there is a subconscious equation of fast food to those who cannot take care of themselves. Fast food means fat people, or poor people, or fat poor people. Whether that’s a fair assessment or not is another story, but still, I think the emotional knee-jerk reaction of disgust to fast food is widespread enough for me to make this point: to use fast food as an alternative to the rainforest is unfair, because like Dr. Alexandratos said, other businesses use Brazil’s cattle for meat. Why didn’t he, then, use a picture of (delicious, delicious) steak from Four Seasons in place of a big Mac? I can’t believe I’m defending mega-chains of fast food, but I think unless we know for sure that fast food chains like McDonalds are the main driving force behind deforestation, we should use a picture of McDonald’s burger as an alternative to the rainforest, especially when the Supersize Me clip of a man throwing up a McDonald’s burger was so fresh in our minds. It plays on our preexisting emotion (disgust and shame) on fast food. The powerpoint was an undeniably effective tool, but shouldn’t classrooms be neutral environments?
The class on environmental ethics were a great fun because we were involved in the flow of the dialogue between the professor and the student. Often, in lecture classes, the dialogue is really a one-way street. I’m glad I have at least one small seminar class this semester for this reason. I especially thought the distinction between instrumental value and intrinsic value interesting, mainly because I am not sure if there is a fundamental difference between the two. The functional differences are clear, especially when looking at the theories of Deep Ecology. However, I think the driving force behind intrinsic value is the same as the force behind instrumental value: feeling good. (Speaking of, a cute little comic about dopamine and serotonin attached after the second page.) Whether it’s for fur or companion, we still see “value” behind the same entity because the entity serves us in some way.
This makes me think anyone can be part of the Deep Ecology movement if they have enough time and resource to associate non-human things with benefits to themselves. I read a feature article about elephant poaching in the New York Times today, and all I could think of was, “Poor elephants,” and “But we emphasize selectively. Would we care as much about factory farming of stupider animals?” I thought the same thing about controversies about eating dogs that make people recoil in horror. It’s only because we, as westerners, have had the luxuries and the cultural tendencies to associate dogs with anything besides their uses. I think if the whole world can afford to take a break from struggle to survive, we would have a lot of more willing converts to the Deep Ecology movement, even superficially.
