How Racial Statistics Lie

Even though Tukufu Zuberi poses solutions which emphasize the shortcomings of academia, the existence of his body of work itself symbolizes a positive stride towards addressing racial bias.

The book, Thicker than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie, can be used to highlight the weaknesses of academia as Zuberi, like various other academics, seek a clear cut solution to a socially embedded problem. Therefore, Zuberi’s own solutions are not only naïve but also lack viability and practicality. His solutions to “de-racialize” statistics only weakly address the inherent racial bias from the potentially narrow perspective of the researcher. Therefore, he is quick to note that the researchers should go beyond their own social constructions in order to collect data; however, he fails to address how they would manage thinking independently from their own preconceived thoughts and beliefs about race. Zuberi also suggests that we must “demystify” the notion of racial statistics, yet one cannot help but wonder how this demystification will ever occur.

It is even more astonishing that Zuberi simply makes claims to assess partial solutions to problems in racial statistics after pointing out the complex relationship of race in the context of society. Hence, not only are his claims somewhat short sighted, they also signify a greater problem within the disciplines of academia. Academic rhetoric attempts to critically analyze and assess various matters in order to pose viable solutions to potential problems. However, because these solutions are derived largely from a theoretical perspective, they remain quite distant and inapplicable in the real world. Hence, academia falls into the trap of critical analysis in the sense that in the process of analysis it fails to intrinsically address the problems in a systematic and conducive manner. Furthermore, Zuberi’s work treats race as a factor of choice in statistics when the concept of race itself is not only dependent upon other social constructs but it is also a factor which is intrinsically present in societies. Furthermore, race also plays a factor in research regardless of whether it is indicated in explicit ways when it is reported or in implicit ways when it is not.

Zuberi’s attempts to seek a viable solution also indicate the innate nature of academia in the context of societal factors. Various academics seek a universal truth which can be highly problematic and erroneous. Firstly, because race is socially constructed with respect to which unique society it inhabits, there is no universal truth in regards to race. Secondly, societal problems cannot be solved with the proposition of a single idea. Because societal problems are deeply embedded within a larger cultural construct, potential solutions also need to be embedded in respect to this construct and should take in consideration the complexities rather than making attempts to oversimplify societal matters. Zuberi ignores the fact that even though race is a social construction, it has now become a part of our world. It is embedded in the way we view ourselves as well as those around us. This overriding social factor cannot be overcome. It would be naïve to assume that such a utopian like existence would be present where race could completely be eliminated both in the discipline of statistics as well as otherwise.

Zuberi thoroughly supports the extent to which race is a social construction, yet it is important to note that this realization exists among a very small subset of the population. Most individuals cannot escape the everlasting implications of race in their lives and consequently have internalized race. This inescapability creates a cyclic pattern of dependence and creates further inequalities and misconceptions to spread. For this reason, using race as an independent and removable entity in statistics denies its true construct. In elaboration, race basically legitimizes a system of classification where people are deemed unequal based on a factor as fickle as skin color. Many people live their daily lives in these constructs, so much so that it becomes a glaring reality rather than a socially constructed concept. Even though the concept of “race” has had a fairly short history, it has been able to create a psychological and socio-emotional havoc among various subsets of populations and manifests itself through the beliefs and assumptions about ourselves as well as others who surround us.

While clear cut solutions to such complex matters do not exist, the act of critical thinking, analyzing and questioning these statistics is what makes Zuberi’s work promising. Zuberi himself can be perceived as a positive symbol as he poses questions and dissents from blindly believing in racial statistics. Furthermore, the body of work symbolizes an optimistic step towards the future which may not ever escape the problematic nature of race relations, but may encourage a fertile ground for dialogue, discourse and dissent where individuals are able to pose questions about their social surroundings and bodies of agency instead of blindly accepting normative arguments. Even though this dissent may be in a very small sector of the population, it still indicates a sliver of hope for individuals who continue to question and reconstruct the ideas of race and how it impacts us in our daily lives.

A Critical Analysis of Biomedicine in the Context of HIV

Both Impure Science and When AIDS Began: San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic address that HIV, not only, challenges the constructs of biomedicine in terms of its manifestation but it also serves to highlight the intrinsic weakness within the systems of biomedicine.

Biomedicine often seeks a “magic bullet” when it comes to addressing a particular disease. Because there is no universal solution to HIV, as it socio-culturally manifests itself in diverse ways within various societies, such a “magic bullet” is not a viable solution in relation to this epidemic. Even if a “magic” vaccine were discovered, this would not address the social, cultural and economic ramifications of the disease.

This particular epidemic can illustrate the inadequacies within the constructs of biomedicine in various ways. Firstly, when HIV initially manifested itself among male homosexuals, homosexuality, itself, became a concept which was largely medicalized and pathologized. Furthermore, biomedicine over accounted for the role of sexual transmission in the spread of HIV. Hence, even when the data set enlisted that a number of homosexuals were also intravenous drug users, research scientists chose to assign sexual behavior as the primary risk factor. Secondly, the dangers of arrogance in research can be felt time and time again in regards to HIV. Biomedicine desperately tries to separate itself from society in order to invest in research with a scientific base, yet it is not able to protect itself from the shortcomings of the researcher himself. This downfall is especially illustrated by Gallo’s fixation with attempting to prove the relation of HIV with a specific type of cancer. Additionally, biomedicine is largely governed by systems of power and legitimacy which are more concerned with the competition within the biomedical research arena rather than a larger altruistic good. Therefore, the cults of credibility formed by an elitist group of scientists not only dictate knowledge as they see fit, but also serve to mostly hinder any other alternative hypothesis in regards to the disease. Lastly, HIV research mainly still ignores socio-cultural and economic factors. In the process of being “scientific,” biomedical research fails to capture the essence of who HIV impacts and why it impacts them. It is scary to believe that researchers sincerely did not and still do not see relations between the prevalence of HIV and its relations to socio-cultural and economic factors.

Moreover, much of HIV research which was conducted principally excluded marginalized populations such as women and intravenous drug users. Therefore, one cannot help but wonder who this research is helping. This curiosity is highly relevant as one considers how biomedicine prefers to be rather fixated with attempting to find an unlikely vaccine to magically cure HIV rather than invest in alternative treatments which show more promise as noted by Michelle Cochrane.

HIV primarily impacts marginalized populations internationally; however, much of HIV research is being done in the western world. This poses three primary concerns. Firstly, it leads to questioning the intentions of the western world in regards to addressing HIV. Because most individuals affected are marginalized populations around the world, why is the western world so thoroughly invested in this disease? Secondly, because the prevention and intervention measures are often being planned in the western world, this further hinders cultural sensitivity and adaptability. For instance, prevention and intervention methods which may have been successful in Ghana may produce drastically different results in Delhi. Thus, the predominant research being done in the western world is of concern as it may undermine cultural factors. Lastly, western researchers may have preconceived notions about countries in which HIV is prevalent. The erroneous beliefs of the manifestation of HIV in Africa being a result of “culture” and Africa’s perceived “incompetence” to implement change both largely hinders biomedicine as highlighted by Cochrane.

Even though HIV is a fairly young virus, it has certainly led to the questioning of biomedical systems of legitimacy and power which reign havoc on disease prevention and intervention measures. Furthermore, its handicap lies in its vested interest in power and money, rather than on genuinely attempting to seek solutions which promise results. HIV especially challenges the notion of “one size fits all” solution yet this does not prevent researchers to attempt to seek this solution. These two books therefore go beyond HIV in the sense that they illustrate how systems of biomedicine which claim to be largely “scientific” are actually laden with political and personal agendas which have more to do with power and funding relations and less to do with addressing the disease. Furthermore, one cannot help but wonder why the field of biomedicine itself is so afraid of looking at larger context which keeps in mind socio-cultural and economic factors. In essence, is biomedicine afraid to do this because this may actually force them into reflecting on their own shortcomings in regards to disease?

Social Capital

Bowling Alone written by Robert Putnam can be deconstructed through the means of four distinct categories which primarily serve to highlight the shortcomings of Putnam’s research. Firstly, the specific use of economic language and terminology itself constricts Putnam’s work. Secondly, the paradoxical relationship which exists between capitalism and communitarianism potentially serves as a means to debunk his entire piece. Thirdly, Putnam’s overall research study can be illustrative of the large discrepancy which can unfortunately exist between one’s intentions as opposed to the manifestation of one’s actions. Finally, the link between social capital and health as presented by Putnam serves to accentuate the weaknesses of his piece as he is quick to make numerous generalizations about the implication of social relations on health.

The potency of language is clearly reflective in Putnam’s work as he fixates on using the language of economics as a means of describing the importance of social relations. This has numerous negative consequences as Putnam objectifies social relations as a means to an end, instead of a means in itself. For instance, the word “capital” implies the desire for more of a particular “good.” In essence, relationships are identified as a quantifiable “good” undermining human interaction in a broader socio-cultural context. Hence, more social interaction is preferred as a means to more social capital instead of the desire to establish these interactions outside the context of gaining “capital.”

Furthermore, Carles Muntaner and John Lynch point out the other problematic aspect of the term “social capital” itself as it identifies social relations as independent of other forms of capital. Hence, the use of “social capital” outside the context of physical and financial capital unfortunately implies that social relationships are considered outside of financial and physical factors, a concept that is largely contradictory to the processes of the real world.

The notion of the “survival of the fittest” is intertwined very intimately with the concept of “capitalism.” Because competition is the central component of capitalism, individuals are encouraged to compete independently with each other in order to gain the most “capital.” However, the concept of communitarianism is based more on the social interactions within a group of individuals in which social relations are dependent on both parties involved and these relations are encouraged in order for the greater good of the community. Therefore, the concept of capitalism and communitarianism present a starkly different and contrasting picture of what is valued and seen as favorable in respect to each scenario. Putnam is utterly entrapped by the “power of capitalist ideology” as pointed out by Vicente Navarro as the researcher fails to address the contradictory nature of the idea of social capital itself.

The discrepancy between Putnam’s intentions and the consequences of his piece of work serves to be both unfortunate as well as puzzling. Putnam’s intends on encouraging the trend towards rekindling social ties within the context of the family and the community in North America. In order to do this, he mostly illustrates the importance of social interactions in relation to the overall wellbeing of individuals. Even though his intentions are grounded in a sincere desire to encourage social interactions, his methods of articulation and presentation of data sets are largely flawed and erroneous. Primarily, the lack of contextualization is unfathomable as Putnam does not take race, gender or ethnic relations into consideration. Secondly, Putnam has an overriding tendency to oversimplify contexts in order to suit his own assumptions. This is clearly illustrated as pointed out by Navarro in the case of laborers during the Progressive Era. Putnam urgently labels young laborers as apathetic towards the labor movement when in actuality large oppositions enforced by the US government and employers severely hindered laborers from joining unions even if they so desired. Hence, Putnam’s “depoliticization” of numerous matters is shocking as he is highly respected as a political scientist yet his work lacks knowledge based on his own personal expertise.

In addition, Putnam is quick to make “naïve epidemiological assumptions” linking health to social relations. His main flaw lies in the fact that he uses individual manifestations of disease and attempts to make implications in regards to a larger social context. Additionally, the quantitative analysis of happiness as attained by particular salary in relation to the happiness attained by marriage or education seems largely oversimplified and questionable. Even though, Putnam himself points out that the data is ambiguous he still inherently assumes that comparisons between happiness attained by marriage vs. happiness attained by a certain increase in salary can actually be related and quantifiable.

In essence, Putnam presents an intriguing concept of “social capital,” yet as the deconstruction of this term occurs, one cannot help but question its viability and sustainability in the real world. Furthermore, the construction of social capital in the backdrop of the psychosocial model hinders such a concept even more so as it fails to contextualize both race and gender which play an integral factor in social relations. Thus, the language of economics has infiltrated the way in which social relations are perceived, so much so that Putnam cannot see beyond his own quantity driven capitalistic perception.

Development as Freedom

In reading Development as Freedom written by Amartya Sen, I could not help but feel quite titillated and enthralled by his work. The importance of embedding economics in the larger context of other socio-cultural and political factors in order to address developmental concerns serves as the central argument of Sen’s work. Hence, Sen presents a beautiful piece which challenges economic growth as the primary mode of addressing development, nevertheless, the lack of the mention of power as noted by Vincente Navarro does prove to be quite fatalistic in Sen’s sincere attempts to deconstruct the functional nature of development.

I thoroughly enjoyed Sen’s critical analysis of economic theory which largely functions on individual agency and free market competition. In his chapter on justice, Sen analyzes how the “utility” derived from a individual gaining a particular good lacks contextualization indicating that all individuals in all circumstances, whether ill, poor, rich and/or disabled will gain the same amount of “utility” from a particular good. I recently noticed this same pattern in my modest attempts to analyze economic models which indicated that all individuals with “agency” will have the same desires and will act in the same exact way. This concept seemed quite baffling to me for various reasons. Primarily, economic models assume that individuals have the “agency” to act in their own free will and therefore will choose strictly for their own profit. The overarching expectation of this type of behavior in all possible circumstances is actually a suffocation of this “agency” that an individual possesses. Secondly, Sen’s concern of the ambiguity of individual “agency” also serves as an important point of discussion as “agency” is constructed by an array of complex interrelated factors such as income, gender, and social standing among other factors which are often undermined by economic theories.

Sen strongly establishes the inherent relationship which exists between different forms of social, physical, economic, political freedoms and their respective relations to the process of development. Vincente Navarro’s critique of Sen’s work notes the lack of a scale between these different forms of freedoms as an indication of weakness. In contrast, I propose to think that Sen may have intentionally left out a distinct scale deliberately in order to emphasize that these freedoms tend to heavily bleed into each other. Hence, establishing a clear cut scale would not only have been highly presumptuous but also restricting in the light of his argument which seeks to present development as a mosaic of larger economic, political and social factors which contributes to its overall functioning. Navarro is right to point out that Sen’s weakness in further elaborating on these relationships is a point of limitation, nonetheless; his lack of a decisive ranking order should not be used as sign of failing but should be seen as intentional.

It is fascinating to note that Sen’s work is not the first piece of work which lacks the emphasis of power relations and power structures in the context of society. We were faced with this fatalistic problem only last week in reading Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. Hence, this trend leads me to one primary conclusion. The discussion of power and power relations in a body of work can make the arguments more substantial but they can also make them murky and can consequently create hindrance of presenting clear and coherent arguments. Nevertheless, this leads to various harmful consequences in the context of Sen’s work. The lack of the contextualization of power relations weakens his fundamental argument that development can only take place with the culmination of an array of factors that go beyond economic growth. By largely ignoring the omnipotent presence of power and power structures, he falls into similar traps of oversimplification of social, economic and political relations as the various institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund he is quick to criticize. Because the discussions of power and power relations are often times implicit and difficult to assess from a strictly objective perspective, Sen’s arguments about development are more neatly aligned because of the absence of these very factors.

The deconstruction of development which goes beyond the economic growth model to include the contextualization of social, cultural and political factors is Sen’s most thought provoking argument. Hence, Sen’s strengths lie less in his actual work but what his work symbolizes in the larger context of development. Sen’s emphasis of freedom with its relation to development proves to be a fundamental strength in his work as it serves as the driving force for the majority of his arguments. Even though Sen’s overall body of work does challenge the current development discourse, one cannot help but notice some of the larger inconsistencies and drawbacks of his arguments.

The Importance of Location

Location has various negative physiological, social, and psychological implications on a particular society. Root Shock written by Mindy Fullilove, explores these psychosocial implications associated with urban renewal projects which displace numerous individuals from their homes leading to both a loss of a social support system as well as feelings of isolation and confusion. In the article, “Racial Residential Segregation: A Fundamental Cause of Racial Disparities in Health” presented by David Williams and Chiquita Collins, we can clearly see the physiological manifestations of location driven racial segregation which has proven to cause an overwhelming account of health disparities. Hence, the importance of race and power relations are brought to attention as these factors play an integral role in establishing reasons for why the displacement of individuals occurred, reasons for why a cycle of inequality exists and finally, why this cycle is constantly and repeatedly propagated.

Fullilove’s explains root shock and its potential impact by creating an equal parallel to burn wounds. This leads to two primary implications. Firstly, root shock is further understood as a phenomenon which impacts different individuals not only by different methods but also in different degrees. This contextualizes the psychological manifestations as one is required to approach different “victims” of root shock through different levels of care and support. Secondly, this example aids in illustrating the very impact of root shock itself. By using burning, a highly painful and sometimes permanent wound, the author helps us understand the potency of root shock and its manifestation on the mind. Therefore, by equating a physiological condition to a psychological one, Fullilove presents an argument which allows an individual to appreciate the extent to which the experience of root shock can be utterly devastating and life altering.

Fullilove’s work also deconstructs race and power relations by analyzing why such an incessant need for urban renewal projects initially took place. She distinctly notes that such projects were executed more so for economic advantage and for hiding poverty for the visual convenience of the rich rather than addressing it through effective means. Hence, the process of such “hiding” also has unfortunate physiological consequences as discussed by the Williams and Collins article.

Diseases often times thrive in conditions of structural inequalities making such inequalities even more pronounced and incapacitating. Hence, racial segregation by location as a product of institutionalized racism can be perceived as a fundamental social cause of disease. Disease and health, in this context, can be used in some regards as a scale of social inequality. Certain conditions such as tuberculosis flourish among vulnerable populations where individuals are living in poor and crowded housing conditions. Other health conditions like asthma have also been linked directly to the exposure to pollutants and other airborne toxins. Recently, even the occurrence of heart disease has been higher among populations with compromised living conditions as noted by Williams and Collins. Therefore, in analyzing the relationship between health, race and location, we must not only look at the social conditions for disease but also how certain diseases only occur in specific social conditions. Hence, we have to begin to perceive the presence of many diseases as a manifestation of a fundamental problem within the social and structural system itself.

Therefore, racial segregation by location leads to the lack of access of proper housing, nutrition, education and work opportunities all contributing to poor health conditions. Such limitations foster more inequality as individuals are not able to escape the cycles of disparity which have been set in place by systems of institutionalized racism. On the other hand, such conditions also have other connotations for marginalized populations. The social and economic inequalities in such societies provide a fertile ground for crime, violence as well as other grave occurrences. Furthermore, these occurrences are then in turn used to crucify individuals and justify both explicit and implicit expressions of racism by portraying marginalized populations in a largely negative light. The conditions caused by institutionalized racism are also the very conditions used to validate such injustices. This catastrophic relationship of consequence is one which is both cyclic and inescapable.

In the light of such injustices, strong social relationships play a crucial role in fostering a community which supports positive growth and development. Hence, when urban renewal projects took place, they fragmented and disintegrated the community unit making individuals feel largely disconnected. This only served to add to the many other inequalities that the communities were already facing. In addition, the projects socially crippled individuals who found comfort in social ties and relations. By disregarding such ties and relations, the urban renewal projects not only displaced numerous individuals but also created one more obstacle in the lives of individuals.

Urban Decay, Contagion and the Environment

Deborah and Rodrick Wallace present a fascinating piece of work, A Plague on Your Houses, which analyzes the consequences of urban decay and disintegration using the metaphor of disease contagion. The manner in which urban decay is presented as a state of disease draws light on two primary factors. Firstly, to contextualize a problem as “diseased” in itself implies that the conditions are detrimentally impacting the “body” of the community. In elaboration, the “benign neglect” as discussed by Wallace & Wallace along with “planned shrinkage” only further serves to propagate the disease process, so much so that, these methods develop into the main modes of “disease transmission.” Hence, overcrowding, unhygienic living and working conditions all contribute to this “diseased” state. Secondly, we need to place the “physiological”[1] diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis among others within the contexts of the “diseased” socio-cultural and economic states. Therefore, in truly appreciating the discussion of space, one must keep in mind both physiological and ideological disease contexts which are intimately bound together at various structural and functional levels of the individual, community, as well the world.

Even though to some of us the diseased state of socioeconomic and structural inequalities stand out as glaring problems which clearly relate to health disparities and therefore need to be acutely addressed, this concept is unfortunately far removed from many of our academic and medical colleagues. Thus, the arguments presented by Wallace & Wallace sincerely serve to present a more complete picture of not only how the role of class and socioeconomic conditions propagate diseases like HIV and TB but also how these diseases symbolize a manifestation of greater inequalities and injustices which are deeply embedded within our societies.

As discussed by Wallace & Wallace, biomedicine, unfortunately suffers from the symptoms of resorting to superficial measures which temporarily relieve “diseased” states, but do not fundamentally address the problem. Hence, much funding is allocated to X drug for Y disease, even when underlying social conditions are clearly perpetuating conditions of disease. There are several potential reasons why such omissions are made. Firstly, identifying a physiological diseased condition as contributed by factors outside of biomedicine would indicate that the expertise of knowledge and a viable “solution” through that knowledge may not be inherently rooted in biomedicine. This rather humbling experience may be quite discomforting to those medical professionals that pride themselves so intimately to the successes and strides of biomedicine. Secondly, it is a less daunting task to find a “magic bullet” for a disease: a method of treatment which would ideally involve the consumptions of an array of pharmaceutical drugs which would serve to cure X disease. HIV has proved to be the most challenging from this perspective, as the mutative nature of the diseases makes vaccination an impractical solution. Hence, if a disease does not have a “magic bullet,” this may consequentially imply that unfortunately biomedicine does not have a “cure” and therefore may need to look out of their laboratories in order to assess socio-cultural and economic factors which may play a large role in propagating disease.

Deborah Cohen’s article, “Broken Windows and the Risk of Gonorrhea,” presents a substantially weak argument. Cohen suffers from a lack of proper contextualization as we have seen before in authors like Robert Putnam. The “broken window” theory assumes that individuals who live in poor and mismanaged neighborhoods intentionally neglect their environment consequently leading to their own suffering and downfall: such a hypothesis is both ignorant and largely naïve. The structural inequalities and conditions created by those in power victimize certain communities to live in a dire manner. Furthermore, the marginalized populations are in turn being blamed for their own “environment” as if the environment is some all encompassing concept which controls the lives of whole populations. In addition, Cohen implies that repainting of walls and fixing broken windows could mend our cities as well as our world, which is largely erroneous and presets a rather skewed perception of reality. Quickly into the article, one realizes that Cohen’s arguments are also superficial in that they do not assess class relations and socioeconomic conditions which all play a large factor in propagating certain disease conditions. Furthermore, her use of the word “environment” in order to encompass an umbrella of possible definitions severely weakens her rather awkward and presumptuous overgeneralizations.

The Cohen article presents a stark contrast to the Wallace & Wallace book as the Wallace’s quite beautifully contextualize urban decay and its manifestations, where as Cohen utterly fails to even see the larger context of disease. Some academics like Cohen blame dire health conditions solely on the environment where as Amartya Sen discusses the importance of socio-cultural conditions but leaves out the discussions about power, the Wallace’s in contrast cover urban decay in a manner which successfully contextualizes the larger picture to the greatest extent in comparison to the other readings we have had the opportunity to read thus far.

---

[1] The term physiological is in quotation marks because HIV stays dormant for many number of years before outward symptoms appear, however, it devastates the body when it manifests and hence, becomes quite heavily symptomatic in its active state.

Medical Apartheid

Medical Apartheid

Medical Apartheid, written by Harriet A. Washington presents a horrific history of experimentation and exploitation of the African American population starting as early as the nineteenth centaury. Although much of the novel is rather graphic in describing physical measures of torture and exploitation, this form of vivid imagery actually serves to establish the poignancy and importance of the matter. In the much revered and respected discipline of medicine, Washington sheds light upon the ugly brutalities committed against African Americans through out the course of history. Hence, Washington’s work serves to illustrate three primary concepts. Firstly, it addresses how black bodies were largely dehumanized and exploited. Secondly, it discusses the dark history of medicine in which African Americans were repeatedly used for human experimentation for the prestige and success of medical professionals. Finally, Washington’s work allows us to deconstruct the field of medicine in a manner which opens our eyes to the entrepreneurial and predatory nature of the profession and how such traits are paradoxical to how we perceive physicians and their roles in our societies.

Human experimentation existed to satiate the sick curiosities of the medical academia as well as occurred with the intentions of discovering the secrets about how the body was physiologically structured and how it functioned. Such curiosities largely led to the dehumanizing of the bodies of the individuals studied as academics perceived the body more as objects of study and observation rather than subjects who held value and meaning. Unfortunately, this dehumanization occurred mostly in the context of African Americans bodies. The omnipotent belief of black inferiority and curious assumptions about how African Americans reacted to pain and disease only further served as a justification for black exploitation in the minds of white physicians. Such dehumanization is horrific to note from the painting by W. Gibson from Dr. Henry Clay’s collection, which illustrates how a white doctor drops a dead black baby from his coat. The picture is quite heartrending as baby is not only shown with his face down but in an awkward position which clearly serves to symbolize a mass of flesh devoid of all human characteristics. Considering that children in the context of society are much loved and revered, the dehumanization of a child because of his race is quite a scary reality.

Various doctors like Marion Sims gained great respect and success at the cost of numerous botched up surgeries on African American female slaves. It is heartbreaking to see that doctors like Marion Sims are granted marble memorials in Central Park in New York City for having made “brilliant achievements,” but the stories of the women he tortured and exploited at the cost of this prestige lie hidden in the covers of Washington’s books. It makes me well up in tears to think about the numbers of lives lost at the cost and vanity of medicine. The very discipline which is built on the foundation of saving lives not only takes lives but does so in a horrendous and humiliating manner.

Being that I myself want to pursue a career in medicine, Washington’s work raises serious doubts in my mind about my future. As a naïve student, I have always assumed the nobility which is attached to the field of medicine and have perceived the power of “healing” as a gift that a few members of society are fortunate to practice. However, in the more recent years, it has become more apparent that the discipline of medicine is largely run for entrepreneurial gain and success and often times has little to do with the wellbeing of patients. This phenomenon is seen through out Washington’s work where even though a physician has the responsibility of treating the wounds and pains of African Americans, their bodies are often used for experimentation. Furthermore, medicine is presented more as a privilege as it is enjoyed by the wealthy white community. Unfortunately, the privileged and wealthy members of society still enjoy extensive health benefits in comparison to those members of society who may be in most need of health care but cannot afford such benefits.

I am left here wondering about the stories behind the bodies. I do not want to know of Marion Sims. I want to know of the women whose lives and bodies he so deeply invaded. Why have they been forgotten? And if anyone, should not they be remembered? Why are these stories untold? Perhaps I will never know the answers to my curiosities. However, I am gratified that I was fortunate to have seen a glimpse of realities under the large cloak of credibility, nobility and perceived altruism even though in some way these realities scare me and shatter my very existence.