More thoughts on History

Some of Hilary Mantel's points about interpretation of the past were echoed by Christopher Kissane in his ‘Reformation 2017’ Guardian article on 12.8.17 (Saturday Review). He commented on ways in which history is often ignored, over-simplified, or changed: history and historiography is often a matter of perspective. That perspective is, of course, often links to politics, and Christoper Kissane says that:

"Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan legitimise their autocracy with historical myths" 

Ref to Orwell's '1984'

This highlights the importance of the 'control' of the past, and why there should be ease  of access to the historical record. This is also why online, global, editable ‘knowledge repositories’ such as Wikipedia have such value.

Re-thinking History

Our knowledge and understanding of the past generally relies on academic historians and the evidence they find and interpret. Where there is substantial evidence, and the testimony of those who participated in events, then the historical picture can be more accurate. But the further back in time we go, the fewer the fragments that can be used to piece together the reality of the past, and the more we rely on interpretation. This means that a historian, particularly an ancient historian, could get things very wrong.

This issue was highlighted by Hilary Mantel in her recent Reith Lectures, in particular, her first lecture, entitled ‘The Day is for the Living’. She quotes Patrick Collinson who points out that historians can come to radically different conclusions, mainly because they rarely have access to more than 1% of evidence about an event or period. Add to this the possible bias of the historian – the fact that ‘history is written by the victors’ – and you start to wonder about the veracity of anything much before 1700. This is a fundamental point, and makes us realise how critical we should be about history, yet how accepting we often are. It also alerts us to the unconscious interpretation we all practice: what we see and hear passes through the filter of our preconceptions and preferences before it is remembered.

. Photo: BBC

The point is also a key element in Mantel’s defence of historical fiction. She is effectively saying that everyone makes up their own version of the past, historians included, but at least authors of fiction are honest about the fabrication. Not that she advocates a jettisoning of the facts – on the contrary, Mantel maintains that she became a novelist to tell the truth. The words she puts in Thomas Cromwell’s mouth are her words, not his, and yet they are convincing. The reader of ‘Wolf Hall’ or ‘Bring up the Bodies’ is not only entertained by well-crafted fiction, but develops a greater understanding of Tudor life and politics.

Brains and Gender

The BBC’s Horizon programme last night was entitled, rather provocatively:  ‘ Is your brain male or female?’ (http://bbc.in/1sJl1jI ). 

picture from Morguefile.com

It was primarily designed to entertain,  but nonetheless gave an useful view of the some current evidence about the nature – nurture debate re. gender-based differences in brain function. Both nature and nurture are almost certainly involved: on the nature side, for example, there is the fact that there are more autistic boys than girls. On the nurture side was the really interesting observation about differences in the ‘wiring’ of left and right hemisphere which may be present in adults but not children (http://bit.ly/18C4Ivw ). One part of the programme that particularly reinforced the ‘nurture’ argument, I thought, showed how mothers tend to underestimate the crawling ability of female babies  but not male (see:  http://bit.ly/IOBX2F ).  This example shows how insidious social factors can be re. gender stereotyping, and indicates that ‘society’ has to work harder at equality. As far as education is concerned, evidence discussed by Daniel Willingham in his blog points to few advantages of single-sex schools (http://bit.ly/1rC4ATT ), but we do need to think about the ways in which science is taught and portrayed, and the careers advice that girls receive

Why eating dogs is wrong

If you are from the UK and most other ‘Western’ countries, the chances are you will already be averse to the idea of eating dogs. However, if you live in Eastern Asia – eg. Thailand, Vietnam, China – you may be a regular dogmeat consumer. I would contend that you should not be, and that dogs should never be used as food animals.

Some would say that this is a hypocritical standpoint - after all, we eat plenty of other animals. This is related to the separate argument about animals welfare, but my key point is that dogs are different.

Most of the animals we domesticate and eat are prey animals, and as a general rule run away from us. Dogs are predators, descended from wolves which man has selectively bred for tameness, as illustrated by Dmitri Belyaev’s experiments on silver foxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox). We have selectively bred sheep and cattle, too, but for traits such as wool production or muscle bulk. But in the case of dogs, we selected for subservience and eagerness to please because we wanted them to do tasks such as herding and retrieving. We took a wild pack animal, bred out wariness and independence, and created a species that is pretty much programmed to do exactly what we bid. So when dog-rustlers in Vietnam call to a dog, it wags its tail and approaches its persecutor full of trust. And persecution may well be what awaits it and its many companions (see:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/eating-dog-vietnam-thailand-kate-hodal ).

In communities where food of any sort is often scarce, anxiety about the welfare of dogs may sound sentimental, but as countries develop socially and economically, they should also develop these concerns, for they are part of the ethical and moral steps that will help human beings look after each other. Dogs are a particular example, but of course we also have a duty of care for all sentient creatures over which we have control. And for those of us who have some understanding of animal welfare, we also have a duty to raise awareness and educate.

Reflections on Japan

Back in April-May we spent a fascinating 2 weeks in Japan, mainly in Tokyo and surrounding districts. It was an opportunity to glimpse another culture as well as experiencing a super-mega-city (at 35 million it is almost twice as big as Mexico City, the second largest city in the world).

Despite a falling birth-rate and inverted population pyramid, Tokyo seemed full of young people – young men with highly contrived hair-styles and shaved eyebrows, and doll-like young women in lacey blouses and pastel pleated skirts. There were lots of babies, too, many carried in slings. People were everywhere - every shop, restaurant, and museum was packed to the rafters, though it was possible that  ‘Golden Week’ - a week of public holidays-  artificially increased the population. Nonetheless, given the vast number of shops etc – grid after grid of streets packed full of huge department stores as well as Starbucks and MacDonald’s - this was quite an achievement. And expense didn’t seem a deterrent, either (a cup of coffee was around £3; costs for most things are far higher than in the UK).

I loved the beautiful parks and the splendid butterflies (swallowtails; huge blue and black ‘bluebottles’), and I loved the way the Japanese manage to create gardens in the tiniest of spaces, even a piece of pavement near a door. I marvelled at the weather (heat, rain, thunder, tornadoes), and the way the forest marches down the steep hillside into the edges of the towns. I admired all the temples and shrines, and found the Japanese approach to religion – basically, doing a bit of venerating on special days or at times of need but otherwise not being too bothered - was quite healthy. And I really relished Japanese courtesy, the bowing in shops, the endless ‘thank-yous. This seems to have extended into the street-signs, and the generous provision of English signs everywhere - particularly welcome in the exceptionally tangled Metro system.

But there were unsettling aspects of Japanese society also, such as the way many people create babies out of lap-dogs, even pushing them around in prams. The prevalence and popularity of Pachinko – slot machine venues – was also peculiar, particularly as money cannot be acquired (gambling is forbidden) and no skill is involved. And the Japanese attitude to women can sometimes be a source of discomfort, for example in the ‘waitress cafes’ common in places such as Akihabara, the electronic district of Tokyo, where the young waitresses display both innocence and sexuality. Last, but not least, down at the coast at Hase we saw tsunami warning signs, a small indication that in Japan, the natural world is magnificent but also threatening.

What makes schooling good?

Last Monday, a Radio 4 'Analysis' programme discussed what makes good schools good. Ethos and environment were important, and of course the quality of teaching. The programme also pointed out, however, that family background/influences account for 90% of a child's progress, with only 10% due to schools. Put another way, 'successful' pupils are mostly from middle class homes. But it's not the bigger house or fancier food that makes the difference, though no doubt they help. The things that predispose children to succeed include discussion, questionning, curiosity, and a sense that the world is full of wonderful things that are worth discovering.
These are intangible yet profound benefits, and can only be acquired by a close and happy relationship between parent and child. If we want to improve the lives of children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds we should focus on ensuring that their parents have or gain these skills. If we want to increase the influence of schools, and make schooling good, we should ensure that teachers behave like the best parents and interact with children at a personal level to help them not only understand and learn, but to make their lives happy and exciting. And we need to reduce class size. Actually, I'm probably describing Eton without the boarding and flogging, and I'm implying cost. But fulfilled children are more important than a handful of satisfied bankers.

Migraine II

My last migraine episode reminded me in no uncertain terms about the gastro-intestinal aspects of the condition. The complete lack of cold symptoms at the time also made me doubt my previous ideas about a viral origin (though I still think it was an interesting idea!). This has led me to a re-think, and a realisation that the emetic centres of the brain ( specifically the area postrema in the medulla) must have some involvement. This links to some extent to the observations from PET scans (as reported by the Migraine Trust) that brain stem areas appear to be active during migraine attacks. The Migraine Trust article indicates that current thinking is more in favour of neurological origins of migraine than vascular, but I wonder if both are involved. The area postrema is a curious structure that by-passes the blood-brain barrier to some extent and is sensitive to several circulating chemicals. One substance for which receptiors have been found is prolactin, which apparently is associated with osmoregulation in lower animals. Perhaps migraine attacks are associated with changes in prolactin levels - these can vary diurnally and seasonally, and perhaps might peak after periods of stress; the osmoregulatory aspect of its function may cause changes in intra-cranial pressure associated with headache.The involvement of prolactin - or something like it - might also help explain why females are more affected than males, and why women tend to suffer less after menopause (see Migraine Trust factsheet). However, migraine does not seem to be a major symptom of hyperprolactinaemia. Apparently, dopamine tends to inhibit synthesis of prolactin, so the ultimate orgin of migraines may be disturbances to dopaminergic pathways - this could be tested by appropriate use of dopamine agaonists/antagonists.
It's another idea, anyway!