If there’s one thing that proponents are absolutely sure of it is that they are superior. That belief is enhanced by the accompanying conviction that science will demonstrate their superiority.
No, I’m not talking about eugenicists, though I could be. I’m talking about the contemporary lactivist movement. Every time I write about blog post about the incontrovertible fact that infant formula is an excellent, nutritionally complete way to feed a baby, lactivists swoop in like a murder of crows, all cawing loudly, “The Science! The Science!”
Lactivists bear an uncomfortable resemblance to eugenicists, not because they are racists, but because of the way they categorize the world into us vs. them. Moreover, like eugenicists, they abuse science in the service of their unscientific beliefs.
Consider:
1. Both start with a conclusion and then search for proof.
Eugenecists claim that it is self-evident that the white “race” is superior. Their “science” is an attempt to prove that superiority and to quantify it. There is absolutely no possibility that their research efforts will ever conclude that all men (and women) are created equal.
As Prof. Elof Carlson explains:
The eugenics movement arose in the 20th century as two wings of a common philosophy of human worth. Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics in 1883, perceived it as a moral philosophy to improve humanity by encouraging the ablest and healthiest people to have more children. The Galtonian ideal of eugenics is usually termed positive eugenics. Negative eugenics, on the other hand, advocated culling the least able from the breeding population to preserve humanity’s fitness. The eugenics movements in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia favored the negative approach.
Grantly Dick-Read, the father of the natural childbirth movement, was deeply influenced by the positive eugenics movement, and made his claims in an effort to convince white women of the “better” classes to have more children. In contrast, American eugenicists were more concerned with using “science” to justify discrimination against other racial and ethnic groups.
Beginning in the 1900s, scientists began to develop different methods for measuring intelligence. These tests were used often to justify racial and ethnic discrimination. The results of these intelligence tests were influential in shaping U.S. immigration policy that limited immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, and in justifying race-based segregation in public education, and U.S. conscription during World War I. Previously, the scientific debate centered largely on perceived differences in racial intelligence based on cranial size.
Similarly, lactivists claim that it is self-evident that breastfeeding is superior to formula feeding. Their “science” is a surprisingly desperate attempt to prove that purported superiority. It makes children smarter! It prevents obesity! The microbiome! Epigenetics! There is absolutely no possibility that their analysis of the data will EVER conclude that there is no measurable difference between breastfed babies and formula fed babies, let alone concluding that formula feeding leads to smarter, healthier children.
2. Both feel the need to discriminate.
Eugenicists refuse to accept any of that namby-pamby claptrap about equality. It is critically important to locate themselves within some group that is better than other groups.
Despite the fact that breastfeeding is a practice that affects only your own child, lactivists care deeply whether other women are breastfeeding or formula feeding. Why? Because it is critically important for them to locate themselves within a group of mothers who are better than other mothers; they insist that their children are superior to other women’s children.
3. They are desperate for scientific confirmation of their deeply held beliefs, so they can turn around and use “the science” as a cudgel to beat those who don’t agree.
Eugenicists used and misuse science to support supposedly “morally neutral” race based discrimination.
This is akin to the phenomenon that sociologist Charlotte Faircloth explains in ‘What Science Says is Best’: Parenting Practices, Scientific Authority and Maternal Identity.
Arguably, ‘science’ here is not about understanding, but belief. The use of ‘evidence’ has reached the level of the quasi-religious; … they are held to be beyond the possibility of doubt and revered as truth…
When ‘science’ says something is healthiest for infants, it has the effect, for [lactivists], of shutting down debate; that is, it dictates what parents should do.
Lactivists use and misuse science to support supposedly “morally neutral” claims of superiority. The truth is the opposite; shouting, “The Science!” is a way to moralize a personal choice that has no impact beyond the individuals and families of the person making that choice.
For lactivists, appeals to “the science” are a rhetorical strategy, and a rather cynical one at that. Many of very same people who often ignore the scientific evidence on the dangers of homebirth, who openly spurn the World Health Organization recommendations on vaccination, and who dismiss the scientific evidence on circumcision by insisting it is only relevant in the developing world choose to misinterpret and misuse the scientific evidence on the limited benefits of breastfeeding. Indeed, they often justify vaccine refusal by insisting, falsely, that breastfeeding is better at preventing vaccine preventable illness than vaccines themselves.
Fortunately, most of us have come to recognize eugenics for what it is, a way to codify and justify racial hatred. “Science” that attempts to prove the superiority of the white race should be viewed with deep distrust. It’s not that it couldn’t be true; it’s just that the authors are desperate to believe that it is true for reasons that have nothing to do with science.
Similarly, we need to view scientific papers that claim to demonstrate the superiority of breastfeeding with skepticism. It’s not that it couldn’t be true; it’s just that there are many people desperate to believe that it is true for reasons that have nothing to do with science. In industrialized societies with clean water breastfeeding does have real benefits, but they are trivial. The myriad of extraordinary claims made on behalf of breastfeeding are strikingly similar to typical pseudoscience claims: it prevents every possible disease; it prevents obesity; it prevents chronic diseases of old age; it makes children smarter; it makes for a superior intestinal microbiome; it gives babies better DNA! The more claims that are made, the more spectacular they are, the more divergent they are, the more all encompassing they are, the less likely it is that these claims are true.
When lactivists shout, “The Science!” it’s worth remembering that eugenicists shouted “The Science!” too.
We need to recognize lactivists’ cynical use of “the science” for what it is: a way to justify bullying and humiliating women do refuse to mirror lactivists’ own choices back to them, nothing more and nothing less.
