broken walls and narratives

A not so revolutionary blog about feminism, socialism, activism, travel, nature, life, etc.

Archive for the tag “consumerism”

Consuming Feminism: The Abusive Touch of the Invisible Hand

Consuming Feminism: The Abusive Touch of the Invisible Hand

H. Bradford

4/2/17

In full disclosure of my consumerist hypocrisy,  I have a few t-shirts with feminist themes on them and a pair of Karl Marx sneakers.  The shirts were free leftovers from political events, but I probably would have bought them anyway.   All of these items were probably made in a sweatshop with the hyper exploited labor of mostly female garment workers.  Thus, what I write is not from some high and holy place.  It is meant to provide some sort of framework for understanding feminism and consumerism.   This understanding is meant to be tactical for social movement building rather than a personal attack or call for confessions of consumerist sins.  I sin.  We all sin.  Personal mistakes are inevitable and unavoidable.  Social movement mistakes have more weight as it represents a collective error.  Of course, social movements also make mistakes.  One mistake is the embrace of feminist consumerism.  While this was not part of the official organizing suggestions of the International Women’s Strike USA, some feminists promoted the tactic of patronizing women owned businesses on March 8th.  Some feminists believe that by buying certain products, they are promoting a better society.   I don’t wish to shame those feminists, but I do want to make an argument against that tactic.  The following is why I am against feminist consumerism:


 

The Myth of Consumer Sovereignty:

 

Many activists believe that we vote with our dollars.   However, like American democracy, market place democracy is a rigged system!  The argument that we vote with our dollars assumes that we enjoy consumer sovereignty, or control over supply and demand.   We lack full consumer sovereignty because supply and demand is confounded by such things as advertisement and government policy.   The items that appear in the market place, our knowledge of them, our desire for them, and our ability to obtain them are all variables that we have less control over than we think.   For instance, when we go to the store, we probably find one or two varieties of potatoes.  These varieties are cultivated because they have desirable qualities such as durability, pest resistance, size, uniformity, or long shelf life.  If we want a variety of purple potatoes or Russian fingerling potatoes, we may not find these at an ordinary grocery store.  If we do, they may be more expensive because they are grown on a smaller scale or are harder to grow.  Only those with more money, more time to search for this desired item, and knowledge can afford these specialty potatoes.  And while, perhaps they are grown locally or non-GMO, the world is probably no better a place because of the purchase of these potatoes because the purchase of the potatoes does not, in isolation, challenge systems of globalization, environmental problems from industrial agriculture, etc.   Further, this trend could influence companies to begin growing more of these potatoes, but may not challenge the working conditions or unjust systems under which they are produced.  Justice materializes into the form of a potato, rather than the productive forces that go into the potato itself.

 


I think that this probably sounds confusing and my potato example may not have clarified this position.   Basically, according to Marxism, we are all alienated from our labor.  This means we don’t have control over how things are produced, our workplace, and where the fruits of our production end up.  A potato grower at an industrialized farm probably does not know where those potatoes go or have much control over the length of their hours, their working conditions, the way the potatoes are grown, their wages, etc.  Likewise, when we go to a store, we see thousands of products, but because we are alienated from labor, we have no idea where, when, and how they were made.  So, if you order an order of fries at McDonalds, you have no idea if you are consuming GMO potatoes, potatoes grown with pesticides that cause cancer, or potatoes from Idaho, Minnesota, or even another country!  This is alienation.  Because we are alienated from labor, we are never really fully free to make autonomous and empowered consumer choices.  Even if we researched the conditions and source of McDonald’s french fries, we would find our self blindly ignorant about a million other consumer choices.   Thus, when it comes to the market place, were are never really able to fully vote with our dollars, since we are always alienated from production.

consumersovereignty


 

The Myth of Small and Local:

Because we don’t really have control over production, activists often try to seek out trusted alternatives to corporations.  To this end, they often try to buy items locally and from smaller producers.  Now, this isn’t a terrible idea.  When a person buys locally, they may be more aware of the production process.  For instance, if you bought locally grown potatoes, you could talk to the farmer or see the farm itself.  It also keeps money in a community.  Further, there may be less environmental destruction involved in production, since shipping is not over a long distance and may use less chemicals or produce less waste.  Thus, seeking out smaller scale, local sources can be a reasonable alternative to buying from larger corporations.


Nevertheless,  buying local or small scale is not the panacea to our social problems.  All businesses, large or small, seek profits.  From a Marxist perspective, profit is derived from the surplus value of labor.  Thus, the sweatshop worker who I assume made my sneakers may have been paid a few cents an hour.  The shoes were much more expensive.  The company that made the shoes did not pay the worker the full value of their labor.  In fact, they paid them a minuscule amount and kept the rest as profit.   At a local level, businesses also want to profit.  This is why the local business community has come out against Earned Safe and Sick Time.  This would cut into their profits.  This is also why some businesses have been against the Homeless Bill of Rights.  These businesses do not wish to have homeless people in their shops because they don’t want to scare of their costumers, which they think would diminish sales.  This is also why it has been hard to think of companies to support the HOTDISH Militia’s abortion fundraiser.  Vikyre, which came out for equal pay, was afraid to publicly support the fundraiser.  Why?  Perhaps they thought it was divisive and would scare off other consumers.  Even well meaning businesses, such as the Northern Waters Smokehaus had to abandon its no tip policy and reduce the wage of wait staff in order to remain profitable.  When given the choice between profitability and failure, a business will always choose profits.  This, of course, always hurts workers.  Finally, if there is the opportunity to do so, most local businesses would expand and grow.   Every large corporation began somewhere.  Some began as small businesses that made it big.  The profit motive is inherently inhumane.  It is inherently inhumane since profit represents the conversion of the life of workers into the wealth of business owners.  The exchange rate in this conversion always favors the capitalist.   Thus, it is certainly useful to patronize small or local businesses, but this tactic is not going to end capitalism or patriarchy.  It may alleviate some of the worst excesses of the system, but it does not challenge the laws by which the system operates.  Worse, when social movements call upon individuals to shop locally, it can create an illusion that local businesses are our friends.  They aren’t.  They are not for $15 minimum wage.  They don’t want to offer more benefits to their workers.   They don’t want homeless folks hanging out.  They don’t want workers to take  control of their business and decide for themselves how things should be done or how profits should be used.

senecacominwage1

 


 

The Myth of Labels:

Alienation makes production mysterious to us.   One way to shed light on the mystery is labels.  Labels are great.   I want more labels.  I like that it is an easy way to know the ingredients or nutrition value in a food item.  It is an easy way to know where a shirt is made and what it is made of.  It is a way to know if your tuna is dolphin free or your coffee is fair trade.   I am for labeling GMOs.  The more we know, the more capacity we have to make informed choices.


The main problem with labels is the false security they may provide and the way in which they reinforce the myth of consumer sovereignty.   For instance, a person may be secure that their Starbucks coffee is fair trade.  It has a label!  But, the coffee could have been packaged by an inmate.  There is no label for prison labor (which Starbucks has used in the past).   Companies try to sell their products by shrouding themselves in labels and packaging such that is green “fair trade” “rainforest alliance” gluten free and breast cancer ribbons.   Consider the recent debacle with Cheerios.  The company was trying to market itself as concerned with bees, but in 2016 Cheerio’s tested positive for glyphosate, the bee killing pesticide produced by Monsanto.  Critics also pointed out that some of the seeds that Cheerios provided are considered invasive or are not native to the U.S.  Finally, critics also noted that the industrialized farming of cereal grains has destroyed bee habitat.   The big idea here is that many companies know that people are mobilizing or at least aware of issues like environmental destruction, gender equality, globalization, cancer, etc.  Labels and branding are used to attract consumers, but also to distract consumers from other unsavory business practices.  I wrote about this before with the phenomenon of Trump washing.  Nike came out against Trump.  Suddenly, everyone loved Nike.  Coming out against Trump is a way to seem progressive and draw attention away from sweatshop labor.   Again, no company should be entirely trusted as all seek profits.

en_hnc_social_0004_gen1


 

Tactics:

This piece may seem like it takes an impossible position.  Obviously, we live in capitalism but we HAVE to buy something.  Women must often shoulder the burden of both underpaid paid labor and under valued unpaid labor.  While a person might be able to survive without buying, this would require a lot of labor!!  Imagine weaving your own cloth, sewing your own clothes, producing and preserving your own food!  The amount of time would not be realistic for most people.  Further, it would force women to work harder at unpaid labor in the interest of usurping capitalism.   Of course, there are benefits of making and growing or collecting and gleaning rather than buying – but these do not really have the collective economic power to liberate us from capitalist patriarchy.


I accept that some buying is inevitable.  I accept that people should be mindful of what they buy, but that even this requires time, knowledge, and money.   I accept that there are tactics related to buying that CAN be powerful.  Collectively, we can engage in anti-buying campaigns.   For instance, there are activists who are divesting their money from banks that support or benefit from the Dakota Access Pipeline.  There are activists who supported boycott and divestment against apartheid South Africa.  There are activists who currently support the same against apartheid in Israel.   The labor movement often calls upon people to boycott companies which are not using union labor or to not patronize a business that is in the middle of a labor dispute.  The International Women’s Day March called upon women to boycott sexist companies or avoid buying for the day.  Boycotting and divestment is a useful tactic when it is collective and associated with a social movement.   These movements use consumer power to collectively punish a business in the interest of creating social change rather than individually reward for doing something perceived as good.


Finally, the major flaw with consumer feminism is that it is focused on consumption rather than production.  I get it.  It is easier to focus on the consumer end of things.  I can go to a store and as an individual choose what to buy.  It is easy.  The choice takes little time.  With hope, others would do the same.  However, consumer choices traps one in the logic of capitalism.  It locks one into supply and demand and consumer sovereignty.  It hopes that buy changing one company, the day will be saved.  But, even if everyone chose to buy an organic, Whole Food co-op version of cheerios….and even if Cheerios went under…there would be other cereal brands and other issues with industrial agriculture.  Capitalism is too massive and adaptive to be fought on its own terms and with its own rules.  Thus, this is why ultimately tactics must be production centered.  To this end, we must do the slow and tedious work of building the labor movement.  Only when workers own and control the factories, fields, shops, schools, hospitals, etc. will we really have control of if and how things are produced.  These choices can be thought of logically, with social and environmental good in mind.  In the interim, we must support the struggles of workers for unions, greater autonomy, better wages, more benefits, etc. and connect these struggles to the struggles for racial, gender, sexual, disability, age, etc equality.   The invisible hand will not liberate us.  Capitalism is abusive to women.  It is abusive to everyone who works.  It is abusive to the planet.

landscape-1475243086-hbz-dior-feminist-tee

The Sociology of Pumpkins

DSCF2367               

The Sociology of Pumpkins

H. Bradford, 9/25/2016


For the first time in eight years, I am not in school.  You might think that after all that time I would be a professor, doctor, or lawyer, or at the very least well on my way to becoming one of those things.  Nope.  I’m just a pretty ordinary person.  Not particularly accomplished.  Two master’s degrees, two bachelor’s degrees, student debt, and the growing paranoia that if I am not in school that my brain will start to decay into mush.   I can see it now.  It looks a lot like a Jack-o-Lantern left on a front porch until the following March.  Just a mushy, discolored, vaguely orange, puddle of goop on the steps.  That is my brain.  No, I must rage against this.  I must learn new things.  I must not forget the old things.  Rage, rage against the dying of the light.  Write about things.  Write about sociological things.  Write about pumpkins.  Most of the history in this piece is derived from a book that I just read called Pumpkin: The Curious History of an American Icon, by Cindy Ott.  While the book provided a pretty good history of the pumpkin, it did not have much theoretical analysis of pumpkins.  I suppose most people don’t consider the theoretical implications of pumpkins.  So, here is it, a sociological analysis of pumpkins.  My late night rage against my dying life.  You know, since someone has to write about pumpkins…sociologically.   


main_butternut-vs-pumpkin

Cognitive Schema:  


I learned about this in my undergraduate course on Social Psychology.  Basically, according to Eviatar Zerubavel (a name that sounds more like a Final Fantasy villain than a sociologist) we are a part of thought communities which think a certain way about the reality around us.  Our thoughts are shaped by cognitive schemas, or frameworks that pattern how we think about things.   For instance, usually we view butterflies and moths as two separate things.  We lump colorful, pretty, slender, diurnal insects into the category of butterfly.  As the same time, we lump plump, hairy, dull colored, nocturnal insects into the category of moth.  Each of these categories have a shared social meaning.  Women get butterfly tattoos, but probably wouldn’t get a tattoo of a moth.  Gardeners attract butterflies to their gardens, but don’t particularly want to attract moths to their lights.  There are social organizations to protect Monarch butterflies, but one would be hard pressed to even name a single species or family of moths.  Moths and butterflies, as social concepts, are examples of cognitive schemas.  They are social objects with some shared meanings.  Thus, if a fat, dull colored insect flutters by at night, it may get lumped in the moth category.  A brightly colored Luna moth might perplex some people, but generally this lumping and splitting happens without incident.  Things are more complicated with gender or race, wherein cognitive schemas have a greater political and social consequence.  When we think of female we might think: pretty, weak, emotional, passionate, illogical, breasts, long hair, pink, or thousands of other thoughts that create a framework of how we think of women.  Of course, this pigeon holes people, creates difference, divides people, justifies oppression, and ignores all of the gray in-between areas.     


Compared to gender or race, pumpkins are pretty benign in terms of power, but not devoid of it.  The first European colonists to the United States came here with pre-existing ideas about fruits and vegetables.  As such, they classified pumpkins variably as cucumbers, melons, or squash.  Botanically, it is true that a pumpkin is in the same family as cucumbers, melons, and gourds (Cucubitaceae), but socially we make distinctions.  Further, even in the scientific sense, these things are divided by families.  In a pre-scientific taxonomy world, the lines between melons, squash, gourds, and cucumbers were blurry.  Today, pumpkins are viewed as something special and separate from squash, and certainly not a type of cucumber or melon.  Botanically, a pumpkin is, in fact, a squash.  Socially, a pumpkin is above a squash.  No one promotes squash spice lattes or squash pie Blizzards.  Even as a child, I was dubious that my mom’s squash pie was as good as a pumpkin pie.  There was something psychologically different about eating a squash pie compared to its pumpkin counterpart, though this is likely because the squash came from the garden instead of a can.  


With that said, the pumpkin became more than a squash sometime in the mid 1800s.  This is around the time that Halloween and Thanksgiving became popularized as holidays.  It is also a time when the U.S. was moving away from its agrarian roots to a more industrialized society.  The pumpkin emerged as its own entity because of its symbolic value as an icon of plenty, harvest, and rural America.  It also possessed symbolic value as an icon of the North (especially New England) during the Civil War.  The South traditionally used sweet potatoes in pies and desserts, rather than pumpkins.  Abraham Lincoln even made pumpkin pie the national dessert.  Thus, pumpkins were viewed as a food of anti-slavery and a food that represented American history (even though pumpkins were not idealized by colonialists).  It is a similar symbolic value that makes it popular today.  It is an icon of fall, rural living, simplicity, and nostalgia.  It is also a Thanksgiving symbol and symbol of America.  As such, in our American thought community, the pumpkin exists as something more than an winter squash.  Of course, there are other factors that allowed the pumpkin to become a social object that is apart from and above squash, cucumbers, and melons.  


30175_easy_pumpkin_pie

Use Value:


Use Value is a Marxist term which basically means that an object is valuable based upon its usefulness.  For instance, a pencil is valuable because it can be used to write.  A tree has use-value if it provides fruit or shade.  For most of the pumpkin’s history, it was valued for its use-value.  To colonists, it was useful as a food during lean times.  Since pumpkins store well, it could be eaten through the winter.  It was also used to feed animals.  Even as pumpkins became more popular in the 1800s, they were still used for pies and desserts.  Pumpkin farming was not a profitable venture, as even at the end of the 1880s it was still one of the least profitable vegetables-worth about 1/10 of a cent per pound.  In Marxist terms, pumpkins had use value as a food, but very little exchange value as a commodity.   Yet, in the early 1900s, something changed.  Perhaps owing to decline of rural living, there were pumpkin shows and pumpkin growing contests as rural life became a spectacle.  Pumpkins also had value as Halloween decorations.  In the earlier half of the 1900s, pumpkins started to become more profitable as demand increased and canned pumpkin made its use in foods more convenient.  Today, 87% of pumpkins are grown for decorations.  Ornamental pumpkin farmers net about $691 per acre, a modest amount, but still useful in providing income to small scale farmers.  Pumpkin festivals inject money into local economies through tourism and farms themselves are autumn tourist attractions.  Thus, in the last century, pumpkins have largely shifted from having high use value and little exchange value, to higher exchange value and little use value.            


pumpkin-pie-mix-libby-can-30-oz

McDonaldization of Society:  

The commodification of the pumpkin can be connected to a trend towards the McDonaldization of society.  George Ritzer coined the word McDonaldization to describe the rationalization and homogenization of society.  This process is the result of four trends: calculability, predictability, control, and efficiency.  A McDonald’s restaurant generally has a standard menu with uniform, predictable service and regimented workforce.  Part of the process of a pumpkin becoming a pumpkin (in the social sense) rather than a winter squash was increased control over the production of pumpkins.  Because most pumpkins today are used for decorations, they must possess qualities which make them predictable, controlled, calculable, and efficient.  For instance, if a farmer grew off colored, lop-sided pumpkins, they might not appeal to consumer visions of what a pumpkin should be.  The classic or standard pumpkin is the Connecticut Field Pumpkin, which is an heirloom pumpkin from the 1700s when pumpkins were still considered melons and cucumbers.  There are several varieties of pumpkins that have been developed from the Connecticut Field Pumpkin, made specifically to appeal to consumer visions of what a pumpkin should be.  Autumn Pride, Casper, Paint-a-pumpkin, Spooktacular, Ghost rider, and Spirit are examples of pumpkin varieties that have been developed because their size, color, and shape conform to consumer expectations.  Varieties like these have been bred to remain orange longer and have sturdy stems for carrying.  That is, they can be relied upon perform in a predictable, controlled, calculable, and efficient manner.    

On the non-decorative end of the spectrum, the predictability of pumpkins is more pronounced.  In order for something to become a commodity, the item in question must have a predictable supply, be transportable or exchangeable, and be profitable to sell.  The industrialization of food made food products more transportable, predictable, uniform, efficient, inexpensive, widespread, and plentiful.  Consider pumpkin pies before industrial agriculture and food.  A person would have to either grow their own ingredients or purchase them locally.  Then, these ingredients would be assembled over the course of hours.  Pumpkins require cutting, gutting, steaming, and peeling.  With the advent of canned pumpkin, a pie could be made easily and cheaply, with more predictable results.  Efficiency, control, predictability, and calculability made products more uniform, which generally appeals to consumers.  For instance, Libby’s (which accounts for 85% of the canned pumpkin market) uses their own variety of Dickinson Pumpkin for the canned pumpkin pie.  Dickinson is a variety of squash that they developed themselves.  These pumpkins actually look more like butternut squashes, but since they are only seen in their canned form this hardly matters.  The company uses fields near their factory to make transportation easier and utilizes smaller contracted farms near their Illinois factory to supply them.  Libby’s provides the seeds to the contracted farmers, but hires other farmers to harvest the pumpkins with machinery that they supply them.  Then, pumpkin loaders are used which can loan a ton of pumpkins onto trucks within 20 minutes.  These are dumped directly onto conveyer belts that move the pumpkins into their factory.  This is all a very predictable, rational, and efficient process.  At the same time, as a labor practice, rationalization increases profits by extracting more surplus value from workers.  If workers are trained minimally, complete tasks as quickly and efficiently as possible, with few mistakes and high output, their labor creates more value for the producer.       

     

2e5

Cultural Capital:

 

According to Pierre Bourdieu, a person’s status in society depends upon their capital.  But, unlike Marx who viewed capital in a strictly economic sense, Bourdieu believed that capital could exist in a social sense as well.  Of of these forms of social capital is cultural capital, or knowledge, attitudes, education, and skills a person possesses.  The original colonists viewed pumpkins as a low class food or the food of primitive people.  They denigrated the pumpkin as rustic and uncivilized.  By disassociating themselves with the pumpkin, really, they were asserting their difference and superiority over Native Americans.  Later, Europeans looked down upon colonists for eating pumpkins, again as a sign of their backwardness.  The foods that one eats is an example of cultural capital.  That is, anyone who is affluent or powerful should not be eating pumpkins.  The conventions of what one eats and does not eat is a form of cultural capital.  Eating the wrong foods could be a sign of one’s race or social class.  To be with the “in club” of those with power, one must adopt their tastes and habits.  Of course, access to economic capital often determines what one eats.  A poor rural person may have no choice but to eat pumpkins.  A Native American might have genuinely liked to eat pumpkins as there was no negative social sanction for eating them.

Today, things have changed and pumpkins are no longer looked down upon.  However, we are in a society wherein obesity and unhealthy eating habits are a sign of poverty.  Thus, eating healthy foods is a sign of greater cultural capital.  Eating a pumpkin soup or pumpkin and quinoa salad is more respectable than eating a hotdog and fries.  Thus, on one hand, pumpkin could be seen as a sign of cultural capital.  On the other hand, because pumpkin spice has proliferated across various fast food and coffee shop chains, it has come to be seen as common.  It is viewed as both feminine and white….and ordinary.  Things that are feminine have traditionally been looked down upon, though whiteness has usually been viewed positively in our racist society.  Perhaps, the lovers of pumpkin spice are not doing whiteness right.  In our globalized pluralistic society, a truly educated and elite white person should seek out exciting, exotic, ethnic and interesting foods.  A taste for the unknown and an adventurous palate are signs of cultural capital.  While the pumpkin spices: nutmeg, ginger, cloves, and cinnamon are certainly exotic, as they come from far off places, they have become too ubiquitous to be seen as ethnic.  A person who likes pumpkin spice is therefore seen as provincial or commonplace, much like how pumpkin eaters of the past were looked down upon.  It is also looked down upon for being feminine.   Rape, unequal pay, unpaid labor, sex work, sexual harassment, and domestic violence are all easier to justify if women aren’t viewed as worthwhile to begin with.  

p1-rop-pumpkin-growing-cl

Hypermodernity and Consumption:

 

Simon Gottschalk argued that we are living in a hypermodern society.  Hypermodernity is characterized by such things as extreme individualism and hyper consumerism.  He also observed that there is a certain narcissism and megalomania embedded in hyper consumerism.  This megalomania is evident in the use of superlatives such as better, bigger, best, most, fastest, etc in advertisement.  Hyper-consumerism itself is characterized by extreme individualism that stomps out social considerations.  I think that the best illustration of this is the phenomenon of the giant pumpkin.  The giant pumpkin originated in the late 1800s as a spectacle at the world’s fairs.  In 1903, the record sized pumpkin was 403 pounds.  In 2010, the record holding pumpkin was 1,810 pounds.  To obtain pumpkins that size, they must be overwatered, overfed, pruned, and shaded.  The pursuit of the giant pumpkin is an inherently individualistic pursuit as it is done to test the boundaries of size, win prize money, and obtain attention.  The ecological and social costs of the inputs, such as fertilizers and water use, for a pumpkin that will never be eaten and can hardly be moved, is not even considered.  


Perhaps applying hypermodernity to giant pumpkins is a bit of a stretch.  However, I do remember watching this TV show back when I was a child.  The show was called Amazing Stories, and in one episode, a woman purchased some special pumpkin seeds from a traveling botanist (which sounds like an awesome job!).  She became obsessed with growing a giant pumpkin, but is cruel to everyone around her.  She is miserable about having lost the contest so many years in a row and convinced that she will finally win.  Indeed, she grows an enormous pumpkin.  However, she has no means to tow it.  She drags it behind a vehicle, destroying it along the way to town.  Even though the pumpkin is disintegrated, she is convinced that it is still the largest pumpkin.  In the end, she sees that everyone bought the special seeds and that everyone else successfully brought their perfect pumpkins to the contest.  She is a loser once again, left with nothing but the tattered remains of her dreams…and the pumpkin.  The episode really spoke to me as a child.  I remember it after all of these years.  In any event, her jealousy and megalomania drives her destroy her pumpkin and herself.  Blinded by her hyper-individualism, she can’t fathom that perhaps the seeds were a trick or notice that others may also be growing pumpkins.  In a way, we live similarly, trying to assert our individual existence through Pinterest projects, the things we buy, or our facebook photos.  Our giant pumpkin is the identity we cultivate.  The water and fertilizer are the things we buy.  In this way, the pumpkin is a symbol of hypermodernity.  Okay, maybe it is still a stretch…


Conclusion:

I am sure that I could think of other sociological theories or ideas to connect to pumpkins.  It is actually a fun little exercise and a bit of a challenge to think back at some of my coursework.  Perhaps I could connect pumpkins to Foucault’s power-knowledge, as who has the power to decide what a pumpkin is?  Scientists have a monopoly on defining a pumpkin.  To some degree, the food industry has power to determine what pumpkins are.  Pumpkin contests define the rules to what a pumpkin is or is not.  For instance, a pumpkin must be 80% orange to count as a pumpkin in some contests.  Maybe pumpkins could be examined from a feminist perspective.  Peter Pumpkin eater had a wife that he put in a pumpkin shell to control her!  How about the fact that women must haul their kids to pumpkin patches for photo opportunities.  Or the fact that women are looked down upon for our taste pumpkin spice candles, lattes, ice cream, etc.  I say, there should be no shame. Take back the Spice!  Really, the sociological possibilities are as endless and complex as a long tangle of pumpkin vines.  

Post Navigation