When I think of Otago, I’m inclined to think of it as a
place of solid, practical people – people like Henry Shacklock, who made
cast-iron coal ranges, the original Sir James Fletcher, founder of the
construction company that bears his name, and Bendix Hallenstein, a 19th
century businessman whose name lives on in a national menswear chain.
Dunedin today still has an aura of Presbyterian
sturdiness and self-reliance (although Hallenstein, of course, was Jewish). The Otago Daily Times
is the last of the traditional New Zealand daily newspapers, still family-owned,
still concentrating on what it does best – which is local news, delivered on
paper – and faring pretty well compared with digitally focused papers
elsewhere.But I have to accept that my romantic view of Otago is hopelessly outdated. Because far from being a place associated with useful, functional things like stoves, houses and trousers, Otago has ironically become a name synonymous with the 21st century phenomenon of academic busybody-ism.
Unlike the business enterprises of those early
entrepreneurs, this is not a field of activity intended to ease people’s lives or
make a raw young country more liveable.
On the contrary, it sets out to frighten and discomfort New
Zealanders with an almost constant campaign of shrill hectoring and haranguing.
Its only point in common with Dunedin’s Presbyterian founders is its unshakeable
moral sanctimony.
I refer specifically to Otago University’s once admired
medical school, which gives the public impression of having become a nest of
tiresome academics whose lecturing, sadly, isn’t directed only at their
students.
No doubt there are many in the university’s medical faculty
who continue to work quietly and inconspicuously with the noble aim of training
others to cure the sick, the lame and the mentally afflicted.
But the most publicly visible Otago University academics are
those on a self-appointed mission to save us all from our own folly – people
like professors Doug Sellman and Jennie Connor, neither of whom misses any
opportunity to whip up alarm over our alcohol consumption (which, by
international standards, is actually quite moderate).
The odd thing about their highly emotive rhetoric is that
most of the people at whom it’s directed have nothing wrong with them.
Most New Zealanders are sensible enough not to binge on
things that they know are bad for them if indulged in to excess, but the New
Puritans in the universities don’t trust ordinary people to make their own
decisions. They think the state – guided of course by learned experts – should
determine how we live.
Alcohol isn’t the only supposed scourge that gets these
moral crusaders fired up. Fatty foods, sugar and salt are all on the list of
addictions that we’re apparently powerless to resist.
Neither is Otago the only university that employs them. But it’s
unquestionably the go-to institution if you want to be badgered about your
eating and drinking habits. The Dunedin campus produces self-righteous finger-waggers
the way Ethiopia produces marathon runners.
A previously unfamiliar one popped up a few days ago on
Radio New Zealand. Dr Lisa Te Morenga of Otago’s Department of Human Nutrition
said an improvement in Maori health required a reduction in the socio-economic
gap between them and non-Maori. More specifically, she said the government needed to intervene more to help Maori make healthy food choices.
Introducing class politics into the health debate is nothing
new, but it was what she said next that particularly interested me. According
to Te Morenga, it’s difficult to make healthy choices when constrained by
poverty, "especially when there's a plethora of cheap, high-calorie food out there".
This is nonsense. It recycles the tired old mantra that
people are trapped into eating unhealthy food because it’s cheap; that they are at the mercy of slick marketing campaigns.
Plenty of nutritious food – potatoes, rice, pasta – is much cheaper
than the Big Macs and KFC that a lot of Maori people eat.
If some Maori don’t know how to cook healthy food, then let’s
address that. If people are miraculously
still unaware that fatty food causes obesity, heart disease and diabetes, then perhaps
we need to find a new way of reaching them through education campaigns.
But to suggest that people don’t eat the right food because
they can’t afford it strikes me as lazy and simplistic, although of course it
aligns with the prevailing ideology in academia.
It also absolves people of personal responsibility for their
choices. They can excuse their bad eating habits on the grounds that they are
the victims of heartless, manipulative capitalists.
I’m no apologist for the fast food industry. I curse it
every time I pick up discarded McDonald’s bags or KFC cartons in the street. But
no one is forced to eat burgers or deep-fried chicken, any more than they are
forced to smoke.
1 comment:
Hi Karl
Yes, it’s lamentable, but I wonder how much we are ourselves to blame for this hectoring. Your comments about the Presbyterian founders moral sanctimony not withstanding, we have changed our understanding of what it means to be human over recent decades.
No longer are we the product of personal moral agency, but a mapped genome with DNA driven predispositions. We humans are now scientifically understood, and by that I don’t mean just chemically. The new sciences of sociology and psychology categorize and predict human behaviour.
We are viewed as slaves to external stimuli, and consequently we have become subhuman.
Stephen Franks touches on this in his recent blog post about inequality where he states:
“After billions spent in 40 years of our DPB, and a great deal of good will and hope, it seems to me our increases in inequality (where established) suggest a causality in the direction our grandparents would have thought, intuitively.”
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/inequality-presentation-on-monday-evening/
Our grandparents understood something about the human condition that our academic, political and media elite are no longer willing to accept – namely we have a predisposition towards sin and selfishness that is reinforced by the removal of negative consequences from poor decision making.
Old proverbs like ‘if you make your bed then you lie in it’ seem to have disappeared from our narrative.
As long as we are viewed as slaves to our genes and our environment, this foolishness will continue.
Post a Comment