Continuing on last week’s theme of family, I’m going to turn to a slightly different source. I have a confession to make. This week I’m going to talk about the Disney Studio animated feature film ‘Lilo and Stitch‘. I know, I know, what could the Disney corporation possibly have to contribute to this discussion other than perpetuating saccharine sweet conventional family stereotypes? But this time, they do have something to say.

Lilo and Stitch (2002) was directed and written by Chris Sanders and Dean DuBlois and tells the story of an unlikely friendship between a girl, Lilo,  and an alien, Stitch, who crash lands on the Island of  Hawaii, Lilo’s home. Seems par for the course so far. What really caught my attention though was Lilo’s home life. Lilo lives at home with her older sister, Nani, who is her sole carer after they lose both their parents at some point prior to the film’s story line. What follows is a surprising level of psychological realism including teasing from peers, visits from social workers, sibling arguments and money worries. This is not what impressed me most about the film though.

Amidst the zaniness, Elvis and hard-hitting psychological realism, the theme of ‘Ohana’ arises. Ohana is a Hawaiian word meaning ‘family’ or as Nani and Lilo explain “Ohana means family, family means nobody gets life behind, or forgotten”. Now, the more I’ve thought about this, the more I can’t think of a better definition of family. Families come in all shapes and sizes, with varying degrees of kinship relation or otherwise and varying degrees of interpersonal success. Whether you’re a picture book model of the happy family or you’re estranged from or without those who share your DNA but you’re surrounded by friends and people of your choosing, this definition of family holds. It doesn’t presuppose or impose idealised standards of compatibility or closeness, it just describes the basic duty of care at its most fundamental and crucial level.

Instead of promoting an ideal of family life, which alienates and values one possible family structure over other, the film puts forward a basic concept that we can all relate to. Families may not love each other perfectly all the time, they may not even like each other half the time, but what matters is that family are important to each other and that on a fundamental level they care.

A friend brought my attention to a fascinating article about parenting from an evolutionary perspective. Certain kinds of politicians and religious leaders often tell us that society’s problems result from the break up of the family, but what is this ideal family formula that we should stick to? The modern ideal still seems to be the nuclear family consisting of a mother, a father, two children and a dog but is there any rationale behind this grouping or are we just drawing arbitrary lines and declaring that one size fits all? Some commentators might say that the nature of the family has changed in modern times but is the diversity of family models apparent today anything new?

Sociobiologist Professor Sarah Blaffer Hrdy of the University of California at Davis argues that ‘alloparents’ have a significant role to play in the raising of a child. An alloparent is an individual who takes care of the child while the mother is away seeking food or also one who brings sustennance for the child. An alloparent may be of either sex and may be related or unrelated. In this way, raising a child becomes an endeavour which involves a whole community of adults who all contribute to or take care of the child’s welfare. Professor Hrdy believes that this may be the reason why humans have developed to be so hypersocial. As the child learns to interact with and seek attention and care from a variety of adults, it learns to empathise and cooperate. One other advantage is that the child can still be cared for if either parent or even both are absent for some reason.

Evidence from other species seems to support this idea. Marmosets also adopt this model of cooperative breeding and they display similar behaviours to humans in many relevant ways. A marmoset adult will voluntarily offer highly valuable nutrition dense foods to an unrelated child. Among primates, humans, marmosets and tamarins are distinct in the fact that mothers from these species will abandon a child if they do not have the necessary support network. Examples of this behaviour in humans can be seen in societies where access to either birth control or alloparental support are lacking. Hrdy suggests that the need to access support networks could explain why it is that a young family may be patrilocal (staying with the husband’s family) or matrilocal (staying with the mother’s family).

I found all of this pretty compelling food for thought. Professor Hrdy initially starting looking into this topic as a possible motivation for cooperative behaviour in humans. Previous research had suggested that war could be one explanation for the hypersocial nature of human beings, but this did not explain why chimpanzees who also have lethal intergroup fighting have not developed the social nature of humans. It also sends a reassuring message to the parents and caretakers of today: It doesn’t matter whether you are a single parent, grandparents, a same sex couple or a foster family, what matters is that the child is part of a loving community where it is cared for and looked after. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child.

I was angry and ashamed when the news broke that the British National Party (BNP) had won two seats in the European Parliament. Both BNP MEPs Nick Griffin (North West) and Andrew Brons (Yorkshire and Humber) were formerly involved in the National Front. I think this is a clear message to all those who care about fairness and equality that something is going wrong in our society and that as citizens we are obliged to pay attention and take action.

Why do I object so strongly to the BNP? I object because they are racist and xenophobic and neither of these attitudes deserve a place in a modern, educated society which is committed to human rights and equality, which is what I believe my country to be, or at least to be capable of. The BNP deny claims that they are racist but the evidence is quite clear on their website amidst their manifestos and rhetoric. Several excerpts from their mission statement make their racist agenda very clear:

The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these island [...] We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe. The migrations of the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse and closely related kindred peoples have been, over the past few thousands years, instrumental in defining the character of our family of nations.

The policies on immigration also make their discriminatory stance clear:

On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. [...] we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin [...].

This is just abhorrent. Being British has nothing to do with superficial physical characteristics like skin or hair colour and it has nothing to do with where your parents were born or even where you were born. It is defined by choosing to make your life in the UK and participating in British society. That is, as far as you want to identify yourself with it. We must identify racism and xenophobia when we see it and challenge it. Racism and xenophobia have no substance and we can show this to be the case.

Fortunately, the evidence suggests that the number of people voting BNP has not grown larger. Instead, the other political parties have failed to gain the significant support which previously saw their candidate receive a greater share of votes than the BNP candidates. The Labour Party in particular has come under heavy criticism for this. This leads me to my second line of thought on this matter. A brief study of history or human psychology makes clear that in times of economic crisis or threats to national security people become scared and angry. This is when people start to panic and they start veering towards irrational biases like racism and xenophobia. This is my second call to action. We have to start participating in our democracy and our society and we need to start demanding that the needs of those who are worst affected and suffering most are met and support initiatives which do so. For example, four million children in the UK currently live in poverty. If people feel their needs are being ignored or not met, then they may well turn to alternate channels or ways of thinking. The current situation which has allowed the voice of racism to ring so loudly in our ears has arisen because a significant portion of the UK population feels powerless and has lost its voice. We need to address this.

While we’re on the topic, I highly recommend reading television writer and critic Charlie Brooker’s response to a recent BNP television advert. It’s actually quite touching.

A couple of my favourite comic artists have touched upon elements of the atheist and humanist world.

Cat and Girl contemplate Hedonism.

Dinosaur Comics have some ideas for potential bus slogans.

I highly recommend either comic in general for interesting ideas and their distinct humour.

Although British philosopher Alan Watts was preoccupied with comparative religion and popularizing Asian philosophies and religions, he also contributed some interesting non-religious observations and musings. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the animators who created the television series South Park, produced a series of short animations featuring excerpts from some of his lectures. My personal favourites include ‘Prickles and Goo‘ and ‘Music and Life‘. More animations and videos of his work can be found on YouTube and his son has been cataloging some of the public lectures and releasing them as podcasts.

As we come to the end of a day of voting in the UK as part of the European elections, please spare a thought for those who died twenty years ago in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. On June 4th 1989 hundreds died protesting for democracy when the authorities sent in the military. The Chinese government continues to censor accounts or discussion of this event. Amnesty International have more information as well as a petition asking Wu Bangguo, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China, to initiate an open and independent inquiry.

For several years now I have had the concern that some anti-religious sentiments may be fuelled by underlying racist attitudes towards certain groups. A recent article in the New Statesman discussing struggles against racism in the context of the British Asian community included some thoughts on this theme from Pragna Patel of Southall Black Sisters.

Pragna Patel, a founding member of Southall Black Sisters, describes the Southall Story as a timely reminder of the need for a secular approach to fighting racism and oppression. “The state assumes that racism is no longer an issue, and that the real problem is the lack of cohesion brought about [by] the failure of migrant communities to integrate. Within our communities, anti-racist struggles have been reinvented as struggles for recognition of religious identity.”

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks and the 7 July 2005 bombings, there has been a backlash against multiculturalism. Yet paradoxically, as Pragna Patel notes, the state, in the name of cohesion, has actually encouraged a “faith-based” approach to social relations. “We are fragmenting as a society into separate religious enclaves in which powerful and religious bodies hold sway. This is deeply anti-democratic, misogynistic and homophobic.”

As a society, I think we need to be very careful not to conflate the religious with the political whether through racist attitudes or through crass generalisation. Religion and belief may be a part of the individual’s identity but individuals and even groups are much more complex than that. If you target a group and discriminate against them, you force the creation of a political identity which stands outside of society. We need to concentrate on addressing issues of equality and justice in all sectors of society instead of pointing fingers accusingly and drawing lines in the sand. We need to work together instead of singling out a target group and casting blame.

Earlier today I stumbled across the news that Swedish pop group ‘The Knife‘ have been commissioned to write an opera about evolution in honour of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of the Species’. When I say that I can’t even imagine what this is going to be like, I really mean it. The Knife have earned a reputation with catchy but somewhat disturbing electro pop tunes (That’s probably the first and last time you’ll ever find me using the term ‘electro pop’; electronica, yes, electro, no, but I digress).The group garnered international attention after an arrangement of their song ‘Heartbeats‘ covered by fellow swede José González won over audiences as part of a charming cinema advert for the Sony Bravia television. The production, ‘Tomorrow, In a Year‘, will involve three singers from differing musical backgrounds (electronica pop, classical opera and performance) as well as six dancers performing choreography created by Hiroaki Umeda. It is certain to be a spectacle, whatever you make of it. Unfortunately, the production will not be touching these shores with shows taking place in Denmark, Switzerland and Germany only. Nevertheless, various online music media are highly excited.

Catherine Redfern of the British online feminist community the F-Word and Dr Kristin Aune of Derby University are carrying out a survey of UK feminists and need your help. If you consider yourself feminist or pro-feminist and live in the UK then you are invited to take part. It doesn’t matter whether you are male, female, trans or anywhere in between or beyond. The aim of the survey is to get an idea of who UK feminists are, what they think, what they do, where they are and more. The more diverse and inclusive the sample is, the more informative it will be. I know that quite a lot of humanists identify as feminists or hold feminist views so I encourage you to go contribute. That goes for all the religious feminists too!

Catherine Redfern explains more about the survey, and the survey itself is found here.

Over at the Friendly Atheist there’s a meme about the Ages of Your Religious Transformation. I thought it sounded like an interesting meme but I’m changing the title because it assumes that you have come to your identity as an atheist from a prior religious belief which isn’t always the case. Without further ado I present my ages of atheism and invite any others to do the same.

0 – 6 years – I am welcomed as part of my local Quaker Meeting which my parents attend. I attend with my parents but there isn’t really any preaching or talk of god involved with the services.

7 years – Listening to a tape and idly thinking, I stumble across the realisation that there isn’t anything after death except nothingness. Slightly disturbed by this thought I go find my father and ask him about this. He confirms that this is indeed the case and gives me a comforting hug. I’m still attending Quaker meetings with my parents.

9 years – I think it’s around this time that my older brother introduces me to the term ‘atheist’. In my memory, it goes a little something like this: “Sister, you know there’s no god, yeah?”. “Yep”, I nod. “Well, that means that we’re atheists. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in god”. “Okay”, I say. “Atheist”, I think, “interesting”. I’m still going along to the Quaker meeting with my parents. Belief doesn’t seem to be something that is explicitly discussed or required, it’s more of a personal thing and it never occurs to me to stop going.

10 years – My brother is introduced to the idea of humanism during his lessons for (compulsory) G.C.S.E. Religious Education and explains to me that there are people called humanists who don’t believe in god but they believe in being good. So now we know that somewhere out there are people like us, somewhere out there.

11 years – I join my brother at our local comprehensive school which is a Church in Wales high school. My brother has already done the whole ‘learning the Lord’s Prayer and chatting with a priest’ to pass the entry requirements so I follow him there with an automatic sibling place. My brother chose to go to the school because it’s the local school where his friends would also be and my reasoning is similar. I learn the Lord’s Prayer too, experience my first Eucharist services and I get to sing in the Choir which I really enjoy.

11-16 years – During this time I am attending and eventually help organise Quaker youth weekends where groups of teenagers from different places in the UK camp out at a Quaker Meeting house to play games, make friendship bracelets, talk about ‘life, the universe and everything’, make close friends and generally run amok in a friendly fashion. I don’t recall any real of talk of god, we do our own soul searching.

16 -21 years – I stop attending Quaker stuff because it feels hypocritical as I don’t believe in god. I am told that this doesn’t really matter anyway. I try to look for something about humanism in the central library. I find an impenetrable newsletter and some old, old book titles in the library catalogue. I consider myself humanist but am deterred from any further search for the time being.

21 years – It occurs to me to try looking on the internet now that it does actually have a fair amount of content. My search is successful and I sign up to the British Humanist Association!

I’ve given a quite detailed account but others have responded using just one or two lines per ‘age’. If you want to give a brief version of your development as an atheist (or as a religious believer!) in the comments or link to a fuller version elsewhere I’d love to read it!