In my last
post, I began a breakdown of the recent For
Love or Money conference at Wash U, which I continue below.
In Testing as Commodification, Kate Silbaugh (Boston University, Law) argues that debates within the standardized testing literature represent a split similar to the one witnessed in traditional debates on the commodifying effects of market exchange: those who extol the virtues of a common metric by which to make comparisons and evaluations, on the one hand, versus those who argue that test scores have swallowed other notions of the public good in education. Because Kate is special, she had two discussants: Kieran Healy (Duke University, Sociology) and me.
Healy argued that the U.S. education system has been dysfunctional for some time, and questioned whether standardized testing has really been the problem for public education that Silbaugh contends. He focused instead on other social and organizational issues that contribute to problems in the standardized testing movement and, indeed, in U.S. public education more generally. I invoked the “dark side” of commodification arguments, contending that they may be: (1) a catch-all, in that not all of the objections to markets (or standardized testing) that are packaged under the commodification rubric are necessarily about commodification, nor the inevitable result of market exchange or standardization; (2) political, in that they are sometimes raised by constituencies in pursuit of a self-interest that is at odds with broader social goals, and (3) elitist, in that the freedom to ponder the value of social goods other than individual economic betterment is a luxury not available to all. We both questioned whether most of the objections to standardized testing are really of the commodification variety.
The next morning, Larry Ribstein (University of Illinois, Law) and commenter Bob Ellickson (Yale University, Law) discussed Ribstein’s paper, Incorporating the Hendricksons, which argues that differences between domestic and business associations suggest that using the same types of standard forms for both types of relationships can cause the forms to lose much of their coherence and therefore value, which would hurt both marriage and business law. Ribstein’s paper was prompted by specific proposals to apply the law of business associations to the family, especially non-traditional families, including a recent paper by conference participant Adrienne Davis (see below). I thought that Ribstein and Ellickson (who, as most readers know, has written extensively on private ordering, both within the family and in other close-knit communities) agreed on more things than they disagreed on. Importantly, both felt that the laws governing business associations were a poor fit for family relationships, disputes, and dissolutions.
Finally, Susan Appleton (Washington University, Law) and Susan Stiritz (Washington University, Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies) presented “Money Can’t Buy Me Love”: Sex Therapy in the Age of Viagra, which examines the history of sex therapy and its contemporary practice in the age of Viagra. I could tell you more, but none of it would be as effective as this video, shown by the two Susans (as I had begun to refer to them by the end of the weekend) as part of their presentation:
Discussant Adrienne Davis (Washington University, Law) took issue with the particular views of sex, equality, intimate relationships, and sex therapy envisioned by the paper, arguing that it reflected a particular normative view of acceptable sex and sexual relationships that was not universally shared.
That’s all, folks! Since no one would want to have to follow the highly animated Viagra discussion, we closed the show there. All of this, of course, doesn’t even address the most meaningful aspect of the conference – the discussions among the participants. The event was specifically designed to engender active discussion and, especially, cross-disciplinary discussion. And thanks to our wonderful group of participants, who diligently read in advance and came prepared with interesting questions and comments, I think we accomplished that. Thanks to all for their efforts, and especially to Marion and the other Wash U folks, who really made the whole thing come together.
Above Image: The Love of Money, By: Rein Nomm
Comments