Prompt #24: How might the context in which knowledge is presented influence

whether it is accepted or rejected?

1.
This is a picture of the Academy Award that Marlon Brando
rejected for The Godfather in 1973. Brando did not attend the
ceremony and in his stead sent actress and activist Sacheen
Littlefeather to reject the award and conduct a speech on the
systematic mistreatment of native Americans in Hollywood.
Littlefeather’s speech was met with some cheering by the
audience, but mainly with booing. Actor John Wayne had to be
restrained by six bodyguards to keep him from forcefully removing
Littlefeather from stage and in the aftermath, she was virtually
blacklisted and wouldn’t be able to be hired in Hollywood again.
The Academy Awards is a prestigious ceremony where artistic
merit is recognized and the fact that Brando used his platform there
for a political statement caused the polarizing reactions, as it was the
first time it had ever been done.
In this case, the way in which Marlon Brando and Sacheen Littlefeather chose to
convey their message was controversial and might’ve had an impact on the general public’s
rejection of it. Their disruption of the ceremony, Littlefeather’s traditional indigenous
clothing and Brando’s absence were all aspects criticized that undermined the statement for
the people in the industry.
The audience’s preconceptions and beliefs also influenced. As it was 1973 the
stereotyping of native Americans wasn’t as condemned as it might be nowadays, it was a
problem the audience didn’t want to face, it was more normalized, and it being presented in
a shocking way affected what they believed to be working fine. Furthermore, a month
before the statement, native American activists had seized Wounded Knee, South Dakota
for the government to respect their terms on various treaties, the retaliation caused the death
of two activists, after, the media restated that indigenous people were dangerous just as
Hollywood said they were savage, Littlefeather sought to refute this but what the audience
believed made them reject her message.
2.
This is a picture of the Theranos blood
collecting vial. In 2004, Elizabeth Holmes dropped
out of Stanford to start Theranos. It was revolutionary
technology as people could get lab results fast and
with only one drop of blood. Theranos was very
successful with investors and Holmes was named one
of the richest women in America. Her success would
end when, after investigations, flaws with the
technology were discovered and the realization that
Theranos blood testing did not work. Holmes was
charged with fraud and in 2022 was sentenced to
prison.
The question that arises is how did Holmes
manage to raise millions of dollars for Theranos blood testing when there was no evidence
of it ever working?
The context of the way the tech world works has an effect. Innovation is key
and there is always a desire for the next big, new technology to appear. Theranos was
exciting and revolutionary, so, it was hyped and heavily advertised by the media.
Investments built up Theranos’ value as other companies wished to be a part of this
breakthrough in healthcare and partnered with Holmes.
Elizabeth Holmes herself and her image was also a factor. She had studied at
and dropped out of Stanford, one of the most prestigious universities. She was young and,
like Theranos, new and exciting. She dressed like Steve Jobs. She was confident and
exuded trust and authority. People were more likely to believe what she had to say for the
mere fact that it was her saying it.
Confirmation bias and emotions also had an influence. People believed
Holme’s discoveries because they wanted to believe that this technology was possible. With
how much they wanted it to be true and how sturdy and trustworthy the company appeared;
it wasn’t put under scrutiny.
Various contextual factors led to people accepting Holmes’ knowledge with
Theranos without evidence which concluded in millions of dollars lost.
3.
This is an image of a Chlorhexidine solution which can be
bought on Amazon. It is a powerful disinfectant and antiseptic and its
what is most commonly used by surgeons to sanitize their hands.
We know now it’s crucial for doctors to wash their hands, but we
didn’t always. In the 19th century, Ignaz Semmelweis was a physician
who linked the high mortality rates by puerperal fever for women
who gave birth to hygiene and suggested that doctors sanitize their
hands with chlorinated lime water in between procedures. Despite
having evidence in his favour, Semmelweis’ theories were rejected.
He lost his job and died at 47 in a psychiatric institution.
The way in which the medical field worked during
Semmelweis’ time might’ve been a factor in the rejection of his ideas.
Doctors operated and learned in a more theoretical manner rather than
experimental. People didn’t know about bacteria and Semmelweis
could provide no theoretical evidence for his claims. Doctors believed
that infection spread through miasma, through the air, Semmelweis
went against their theories and was seen as unorthodox, so he was rejected.
Doctors in the 19th century were from upper middle-class families and were
considered high standing authority figures. Semmelweis wasn’t in a position where he cold
stand against them and the suggestion he was making that the doctors were the cause of the
deaths was offensive and unthinkable. Doctors often preferred to have blood on their
clothes and hands as it showed that they were senior doctors and had worked with many
patients. These cultural beliefs caused Semmelweis’ knowledge to be dismissed
disregarding his evidence.
The context around Ignaz Semmelweis’ theories influenced the fact that they
were rejected only to be adopted decades later and still be a crucial part of medicine today.
References

(Allaire, 2021)

Allaire, C. (2021, April 14). Revisiting one of the greatest protests in Oscars history. Vogue.

https://www.vogue.com/article/sacheen-littlefeather-oscars-protest-moment

(Brettmann, n.d.)

Brettmann. (n.d.). Sacheen Littlefeather refuses the 1973 Academy Award for Best Actor on behalf of

Marlon Brando.

(O’Brien, 2022)

O’Brien, S. A. (2022, July 7). The rise and fall of Theranos: A timeline. CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/07/tech/theranos-rise-and-fall/index.html

(n.d.)

(N.d.). Wired.com. Retrieved April 3, 2023, from

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2014/02/ff_holmes_f.jpg