Book Review: The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does

 

Image: the cover of the book is a landscape with a grayish sky and trees and buildings silhouetted in the background. On the bottom in the center is a cow walking through grass. Across the top the editors are listed, Carol adams, Alice creary, and Lori gruen. Below that and large white letters is the title of the book, the good it promises, the harm it does. Below that in smaller cream colored letters going through the building silhouettes is critical essays on effective altruism.

The Good it Promises, the Harm it Does might seem like a bit of a niche critique from someone who's never heard of the "effective" altruism movement. However, the type of nonsense peddled by EA is linked to greater societal norms and trends- many of which are addressed aptly in this collection. Many of us have utilitarian ethics dancing around somewhere in our belief system and many of us have also likely been harmed or have seen harm from reckless prejudice in said utilitarian outlooks.

EA proponents span a variety of movements, but most of my experience with them comes in the realm of animal rights and environmental movements. Most of the entries in this text also focus on them there. EA proponents range in level of knowledge from newer people who joined up purely because they bought the sales pitch that they will do the most good there, and big name philosophers like Peter Singer (who seems to be at a level of renown where he's unable to see outside of his own perceived genius.) I already had issues with Singer before this, but I found myself even more irritated with him after reading more examples of frankly base level ignorant judgements of his with far reaching negative effects, if only from the reach and notoriety he has.

Effective Altruists essentially claim that they're using reason and analysis to make sure that efforts and donations are funneled into organizations doing the most amount of good. Many people may already have alarm bells going off when they read that, but if you don't, that's ok, keep reading. TGIPTHID is a collection that tackles the issues with their approach from a variety of angles. One of the books biggest strengths is the varying backgrounds that the authors come from ranging from community organizers in densely populated cities to rural farm sanctuary workers and jargony academics. Each entry offers a variety of critiques and as a whole, I struggle to think of how anyone actually absorbing the info could defend EA after reading it.

As one entry mentions, the compartmentalization and numbers game are flawed from the start. Should we stop helping endangered species since there are so few of them left in comparison to larger populations of farmed animals? Do individuals ever matter? What about when that individual touches millions of lives and changes them forever? Others mention the racial make up of EA being almost entirely white, leading to a list of recommendations that reflect what the members see as most effective (which is amplified by their complete lack of understanding of data analysis.) There is an effect of how EA functions similarly to how billionaires choosing what research is important does- they choose what they like, and think is important, causing more marginalized yet important efforts to be buried and exponentially increasing the support for ineffective and/or already dominant efforts. There is also a very patriarchal element in assuming that one can actually do anything based on 100% "reason" devoid of emotion- allowing men's emotional decisions more space since they're automatically seen as more reason oriented and grounded in reality despite evidence to the contrary. One of the most frustrating things about EA that I have known about the longest is their offensively bad understanding of statistics and research. Even if one could argue that their methods and philosophy were defensible (they aren't,) they aren't even calculating things in a way that gives an accurate picture of the numbers. 

All of these problems and more result in EA making recommendations for funding and effort that cause already underfunded movements to get even less funding and the most popular, wealthy, well known movements to get even more. When you're doing shoddy statistical analysis and only looking at variables without proper understanding of various effects, of course the organization with a budget of millions of dollars is "more effective" than the small community organization in a poor area. Even experts in statistics debate about how to best analyze and understand data. EA runs through it all like doing 2nd grade math offers the pure truth.

The entries of this book truly help draw attention to just how dangerous EA is. I do not blame those who are new to it and don't know better. But, the men like Singer white knuckling their way through and sniping at various efforts to try to lend more legitimacy to their self centered view of things us indefensible. Furthermore, what makes Singer so important? Since medical care for individual rescued animals - even when it results in improved medical treatment for others across the board- is a waste of money, wouldn't Singer save more lives if he died and donated each of his organs to someone in need? He could donate all of his income after death to organizations. Actually, wouldn't we be more effective if the Global North all died since we consume the most resources? Singer already argues that disabled people have less worth, will he be ending things when he, like anyone who ages and stays alive, becomes disabled? 

This "rational" way of looking at these calculations in the most shallow levels is a ridiculous way to assess effectiveness. It not only can be used to go the route of fascism like my last example, but it forces people into seeing a tiny sliver of the big picture- similar to assuming that removing a human heart and tossing it onto a table gives one a picture of the function of the entire body's systems working together.

All in all, reading this book would benefit just about anyone. These ideas are all around us all the time. Unfortunately, there is no perfectly effective way to funnel money into a single org that can rid us of the stain these issues leave upon us.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Imperfect Victims

Image: The cover of the book is a white background with thick black strokes painted messily across the top and center. In hot pink letters is "Imperfect victims: criminalized survivors and the promise of abolition feminism." Across the bottom is the author's name: Leigh Goodmark.
 

Imperfect Victims: Criminalized Survivors and the Promise of Abolition Feminism was honestly an absolutely brutal read. I am very selective about the kinds of heavy trauma and triggering content I expose myself to these days. I don't run from it all, but I don't drown myself in it to the point of exhaustion like I used to (and used to believe I had to.) The reason this book made the cut is that I believe it adds something important to the general discourse around abuse, sexual violence, punishment, and imprisonment outside of the current way these things are often framed.

The book began as Leigh Goodmark's attempted project at working with incarcerated victims to create a book together about their stories. Maryland's Correctional Department squashed the idea and the participants agreed that Goodmark should tell their stories for them. Much of the book is just that- telling the stories of criminalized survivors of violence who either retaliated violently against abusers or were forced to break the law by them. This is what made the book so difficult. You can't really have this discussion without talking about what happened to these women. I actually would have loved to see the book written by them in a more memoir format. But, I also wonder how much the scholarly nature of this book allowed me enough detachment to make it through. 

The reason I say that this adds something important is that I have been around a lot of various processes, legal and not, regarding abuse and sexual violence. There is an urge on the part of those helping survivors to paint them as angels and those who abused them as the opposite, both of them existing in some one dimensional war with one another. This is well intentioned, but fails immediately when the survivor does something human- making a mistake, showing a flaw, or even just doing something strange or non-normative. Goodmark discusses the ways that survivors can both be victims of violence and also have flaws and take actions that may or may not be defensible morally or legally. I am not saying that this has never been done- people have discussed this for as long as I can remember. But, in more mainstream systemic settings like law and academia, many people need this. 

The parts of the book that were slightly easier to make it through was Goodmark's detailing and analysis of prison and criminal (in)justice systems. Again, it is not that no one has ever discussed this, but the combination of topics mixed with these womens own words is an important collection of ideas that makes them more salient and urgent. Goodmark shows just how much the system is stacked against survivors, punishing them for the abuse they suffered, often after the same system ignored their pleas for help. It punishes the victims of trafficking and it punishes women who act in self defense. Issues of race, gender, and sexuality also play very large roles in who is believed and how women are characterized. 

Goodmark makes a strong effort to include information about transgender people in these systems. It was refreshing to see this kind of inclusion in a legal text because these experiences are so often forgotten. I did find her overall analysis of non-cis/het relationships to be lacking. There is one very brief mention of a lesbian woman's horrific experience through abuse by her partner and then the system's criminalization of her. But, I would have liked to see more discussion about same gender (or perceived as such) relationships and how the system will often treat these instances of violence in differently screwed up ways. It also is important in general for those of us in these communities to remember our communities' own capacities for violence- that it is not limited to straight people or hetero partnerships.

The last section of the book offers important criticisms of prison-centered, reformist, non-solutions to these problems, showing how they strengthen rather than disrupt the system. There is also a small discussion of solutions that are based in abolition. This is a good section, but it likely could have been longer. However, thinking of the author's description of the idea for the book, it makes sense that it's more focused on sharing experiences rather than a handbook of solutions (despite the byline which the author may not have chosen.)

There were a couple of things that I would have liked more of her thoughts on. I agree with pretty much everything she discusses. I agree that abuse and violence create situations where victims have to take criminalized action. However, the argument that abuse is a reasoning for an action seems like it could backfire (and already does.) We regularly see abusers turn around and accuse victims and in lgbtq circles or in unexpected power dynamic relationships (a woman abusing a man, a disabled person abusing an abled person, etc,) this can really make those outside the situation struggle to understand it. It also could be said that some abusers abuse because they were also abused. In cis/het partnerships, there is an obvious power dynamic and the abuse often goes in one direction, but not always. In many LGBTQ relationships, gender roles are more complicated. I am not entirely sure what my exact question is. Having seen radical accountability efforts range in everything from very clear cut to extremely confusing, I am curious about where one draws the line in these arguments. I am also curious if Goodmark has opinions on how to stop the abusers. Goodmark obviously is pro-abolition, so what does the other side of the solution look like with violent men (and others?) And, how do we wade through muddier waters where accusations are flying in multiple directions? Again, this is not the thesis of the book, just things I thought of regularly that I would like to pick her brain about.

Overall, Imperfect Victims should be read with care, but also should be given your attention if you're up for it. This is especially true for people who have not survived abuse and/or the prison system and for those who have any role in the legal process. The information in this book is hidden from most people in the USA who get their information from legal and crime dramas or terrible local news segments. I am grateful for all of the women who shared the stories included in this book and I hope that all of them who are still surviving get to live the rest of their lives with as little suffering as can be possible in this awful punitive system.

This was also posted to my goodreads.