Food Fascism and the Convenient Microwave

"You want me to use WHAT to make your dinner?"

My dad would have been a stellar microwave salesman.  In the early 1970's he enthusiastically hoisted an enormous metal box (one of the first non-commercial microwaves) into our home's kitchen, relieving the counter of three-quarter's of its space. He believed it would revolutionize food preparation (the "best thing since sliced bread" as he would say) for my mother, the burned-out family cook.  I was the only one in the large household not to partake of this new-fangled appliance; I had an instinctive and suspicious repulsion to it.  Of course, I was a tender-teenager, wont to explore my own ideas, but also the only thing I knew about it was that it exponentially decreased cooking time and you couldn't put metal in the thing while operating or it would explode (this science evidence realized 30 years later when somebody put tinfoil in my hospital unit's break room microwave and we were subsequently inundated with full-gear firemen wielding hefty axes).  For the first 5 years in my twenties, reliably there would be a new model microwave under the Christmas tree waiting for me.  Too big to re-gift, I would ask dad to return it (he declined and found it another "home").  By my twenty fifth year, Christmas began to be a dreaded event knowing I would have to meet his tenacity? obtuseness? obnoxiousness? head on (probably all three, dear ole dad) around his insistent admonitions I should "enter the future".  Dad had his ideas and I had mine.

The Amana microrange microwave, circa 1967
Good times!...........

Since the 1980's, American kitchens in new homes have been routinely outfitted with microwave inlets to fill (most often hazardly placed at one's head/brain level). In university dorms, they often are the only working appliance in the group kitchen and restaurants everywhere have used them to cut out a time consuming step or two in filling the stomachs of the masses they feed.  In researching this essay, it was evident to me the prejudice I have toward microwaves in relation to food preparation. I admit to leaning toward information to support my bias (the inherent difficulty in research).  I often found reputable sources, like a Harvard publication making statements like (in relation to what to microwave your food in): "Only those containers labeled 'microwave safe' have been tested and found safe for that purpose. A container that’s not labeled safe for microwave use isn’t necessarily unsafe; the FDA simply hasn’t determined whether it is or not." This cued me to the fact I'm not the only one with a bias and that microwaves are a big (probably political) business.  My un-unique food fascism will likely be front and center here, but I will counter it (as I can) with the other side's bias, which is commonplace source.

How do microwave "radar ranges" or ovens work?
Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation—waves of electrical and magnetic energy moving together through space. EM radiation ranges from very high energy (gamma rays and x-rays) on one end of the spectrum to very low energy (radio waves) on the other end of the spectrum.  Microwaves cause dielectric heating. They bounce around the inside of your oven and are absorbed by the food you put in it. Since water molecules are bipolar, having a positive end and negative end, they rotate rapidly in the alternating electric field. The water molecules in the food vibrate violently at extremely high frequencies—millions of times per second—creating molecular friction, which heats up the food.  If the food or object placed in the microwave had no water it would not be able to have this resonance heating type effect and would remain cool. Or, as investigative journalist William Thomas calls it, "electrically whiplashed."

In this heating process, structures of the water molecules are torn apart and forcefully deformed. This is different than conventional heating of food, whereby heat is transferred convectionally from the outside, inward. Microwave cooking begins within the molecules where water is present.Contrary to popular belief, microwaved foods don't cook "from the inside out." When thicker foods are cooked, microwaves heat the outer layers, and the inner layers are cooked mostly by the conduction of heat from the hot outer layers, inward.  Heating food in this way causes the present water molecules to resonate at very high frequencies and eventually turn to steam which heats your food.  Since not all areas contain the same amount of water, the heating is uneven.  Additionally, microwaving creates new compounds that are not found in humans or in nature, called radiolytic compounds. We don't yet know what these compounds are doing to your body (even after over 40 years of frequent mass use?).

In addition to the violent frictional heat effects, called thermic effects, there are also athermic effects, which are poorly understood because they are not as easily measured. It is these athermic effects that are suspected to be responsible for much of the deformation and degradation of cells and molecules. As an example, microwaves are used in the field of gene altering technology to weaken cell membranes. Scientists use microwaves to actually break cells apart. Impaired cells then become easy prey for viruses, fungi and other microorganisms. Rapidly heating your food in this manner, changes your food's chemical structure (hence, nutritive properties).  Without a doubt, microwaving distorts and deforms the molecules of whatever food or other substance you subject to it.

Well, they look perky....

In my mind, this information alone is enough for me to forgo the convenience of using a microwave oven. For you die-hard users, there is the other controversial issue of the use of containers holding food while microwaving. Some sources claim carcinogenic toxins can migrate out of your plastic and paper containers/covers, and into your food.  Counter sources claim the FDA does extensive testing on containers and food in relation to microwave heating, measuring the chemicals that leach into the food. Chemicals such as polyethylene terpthalate (PET), benzene, toluene, and xylene, and they also admit microwaving fatty foods (meat) in plastic containers leads to the release of dioxins (known carcinogens) and other toxins into your food. But (they say) this is minimal if you use the right container and cover. (food fascist raises her righteous head:  but REALLY, why would you want to do this?) And if you should glean comfort by the idea there are "right" containers to microwave in, sources say, "One of the worst contaminants is BPA, or bisphenol A, an estrogen-like compound used widely in plastic products. In fact, dishes made specifically for the microwave often contain BPA, but many other plastic products contain it as well."

Some studies:
-- A study found that broccoli "zapped" in the microwave with a little water lost up to 97 percent of its beneficial antioxidants. By comparison, steamed broccoli lost 11 percent or fewer of its antioxidants. There were also reductions in phenolic compounds and glucosinolates, but mineral levels remained intact.

--A 1999 Scandinavian study of the cooking of asparagus spears found that microwaving caused a reduction in vitamin C.

--In a study of garlic, as little as 60 seconds of microwave heating was enough to inactivate its allinase, garlic's principle active ingredient against cancer.

--A Japanese study by Watanabe showed that just 6 minutes of microwave heating turned 30-40 percent of the B12 in milk into an inert (dead) form. This study has been cited by Dr. Andrew Weil as evidence supporting his concerns about the effects of microwaving. Dr. Weil wrote:   "There may be dangers associated with microwaving food... there is a question as to whether microwaving alters protein chemistry in ways that might be harmful." (devil's advocate:  why would you heat milk for 6 minutes when 2 minutes does the job?)

So, these are the "facts".  Should I even get into the aesthetic of the rubbery chicken breast or tasteless vegetable (or weird tasting mug of water), the direct result of this approach to food preparation?  It hardly seems necessary when the science of the activity of microwaving indicates food/water molecules have been torn asunder, instead of respectfully attended (of course the food is horrific).  As a culture, we might want to look a little closer at how we have gotten ourselves into this mechanical, automatic, morbidly convenient relationship to food.  FOOD!, one of the major life-giving and pleasure providing aspects of life on this planet.

1. [Megamind activates a hologram, while Minion puts on an apron and wig] ... 
   Megamind: But it can be easily reheated, in the microwave of evil! 
   Metro Man: Well, I think 

   Megamind's Father: [last words to his son] You are destined for... 

   [the ship closes and takes off] 

   
   

   Megamind: [voice-over] I hadn't quite heard that last part, but it sounded important. Destined for... What? 

   --  Megamind (the film, 2010)

most of the information for this post was gleaned from:
--January/February 1990 issue of Nutrition Action Newsletter
--http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/18/
--http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0706a.shtml
--November 2003 issue of The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
--Rust S and Kissinger M. (November 15, 2008) "BPA leaches from 'safe' products" Journal Sentinel Online
--Vallejo F, Tomas-Barberan F A, and Garcia-Viguera C. "Phenolic compound contents in edible parts of broccoli inflorescences after domestic cooking"
--Kidmose U and Kaack K. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica B 1999:49(2):110-117
--Song K and Milner J A. "The influence of heating on the anticancer properties of garlic," Journal of Nutrition 2001;131(3S):1054S-57S
--Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Abe K, Tamura Y, and Nakano Y. J. Agric. Food Chem. Feb 26 1998;46(4):1433-1436

Trojan Wurst 1: EGGS

As promised in my post Giving Thanks: Relationship in Food Preparation, I am following up with a post (or two or four) debunking some long held myths on specific foods.  Lately, I’ve been slightly aghast at the continued belief that eggs (specifically their yolks) are “bad” for you.

Truly, I cannot think of a more gorgeous, perfect, natural phenomenon than the mighty egg.  Even the packaging is nutrient rich and so amazing in it’s form and capacity. The egg is not called a perfect food for nothing: in Chinese terms, it’s the complete balance of yin and yang embodied.  The idea of separating the yolk from the white practically seems barbaric; they belong together, and as a complete food, they are practically unsurpassed in their nutritional power and beauty. So let’s see what the research says.

Eggs contain a wide variety of nutrients that support good health and certainly never deserved a place on anyone’s “Foods to Avoid” list.  The historical avoidance of course, was due to the high cholesterol content in its yolk. However, since your liver produces most of the cholesterol in your body, and it adjusts to what you eat, it turns out the natural fat and cholesterol in eggs is practically benign (in moderation).  Major studies have proven they are not the culprit for risks of heart attack and stroke.  Evidence that people who cook (scramble, boil, or poach) one for breakfast — versus eating a bagel with the same number of calories — bypass junk-food cravings and eat fewer calories for at least 24 hours;  it turns out eggs make your body feel full longer. They actually strengthen your heart and help to control your blood sugar, and even boost your metabolism which can aid in weight reduction. Add to this the fact that eggs promote your ability to properly regulate the hormones that help you burn fat.

According to the Journal of Nutrition, eggs should be considered “the whole package”, because they’re inexpensive and contain “the highest quality of protein on the planet.”  Egg protein has a score of 100 on the biological value index, meaning it contains all of the essential amino acids, and has a perfect score of 1.0 on the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Index (PDCAA). These indexes measure a protein's completeness and quality.  Eggs contain lutein which is known to protect you from inflammation. And many doctors today recognize inflammation as the real cause of cardiovascular problems, not cholesterol.  As was mentioned in FAT FACTS, the source and quality of the food source is an important consideration.  All saturated fats are not alike, as all cholesterol sources are not alike (and do not necessarily have a negative impact on the body).

Eggs also have a generous supply of B vitamins, which are also credited with helping to keep your heart healthy.  In addition, eggs contain vitamin D, biotin, calcium, copper, folate, iodine, iron, manganese, magnesium, niacin, potassium, selenium, sodium, thiamine, vitamin A, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin E, and zinc.  Riboflavin, like other B vitamins, is needed for energy metabolism or breaking down the foods you eat into energy your cells can use. Vitamin B12, found almost solely in animal foods, is important for making genetic material, or DNA, as well as red blood cells. All of the B vitamins are important for promoting a healthy nervous system. Selenium helps prevent cells from damage, promotes immune system health and is necessary for regulating the thyroid hormone. Because eggs are packed with selenium, a nutrient that can help keep your memory sharp and your thinking fast.  According to the You Docs “People who get at least 55 micrograms (mcg) a day of selenium have cognitive test scores that put them in a league with people 10 years younger. An egg (14 mcg) on whole-grain toast (10 mcg) gets you almost halfway there. Round out your day with some albacore tuna (63 mcg for 3 ounces), turkey (27 mcg for 3 ounces), or Brazil nuts (a mother lode at 270 mcg per half ounce). Repeat the next morning.” Another trace mineral found in eggs, Molybdenum, according to the Oregon State University, is a key component of the enzyme sulfite oxidase, which is used to metabolize certain amino acids, or building blocks of protein. Like, iodine, selenium is important for proper thyroid function.

Recent studies suggest that eating whole eggs can raise HDL (High Density Lipids), your “good” cholesterol, and have little to no impact at all on your LDL (Low Density Lipids), which is your “bad” cholesterol. One such study was conducted at the University of Connecticut. It involved a group of men who ate 3 eggs every day for 12 weeks while on a reduced carb, higher fat diet.  At the conclusion of the study, it was found that these men increased their HDL or “good” cholesterol by 20%, while their LDL or “bad” cholesterol stayed the same.  Meanwhile, participants who ate egg substitutes saw no change in either cholesterol level.

Egg yolks are rich in two antioxidants known as lutein and zeaxanthin. The content of these antioxidants in an egg yolk varies and depends upon the hen's diet, however, it has been reported that the body's ability to utilize the lutein and zeaxanthin in egg yolks is better than that found in leafy greens, such as spinach, according to an article published in the "Journal of the American College of Nutrition" in 2004. Eating 1.3 egg yolks daily increases blood lutein and zeaxanthin levels significantly. These antioxidants promote  eye health and those with increased blood levels experience lower rates of developing age-related macular degeneration.

As in all foods, the nutritional value is determined by its source and age.  Eggs begin to loose their nutrition punch the older they get and eggs produced by organically fed, free range chickens are superior in their nutrition content.  Look for a deep, rich, yellow yolk (bordering on bright orange) and non-watery whites.  For irrefutable freshness confirmation, break open a fresh organic egg newly laid, and your jaw will likely drop open in wonder at the balanced beauty beheld.

this post was mostly gleaned from:

Journal of Nutrition

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/

http://www.wellnessonline.com/health-tips/nutrition/foods/foods-a-f/eggs-are-good-nutrition/

Journal of the American College of Nutrition

thanks Lee for the humorous title idea....

Science Set Free

As is everything else, science is changing.  Scientists are now recognizing their playground has been constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas.  Should science be a belief-system, or an exploration?  Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D (Rupert Sheldrake Online - Homepage). is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books, including  Science Set Free (September 2012), is one such scientist who is turning the dogmas of science into questions, opening up startling new possibilities.   For example, he extrapolates about several basic science beliefs:  the “laws of nature” may be habits that change and evolve. The Fundamental Constants may not be constant. Minds may extend far beyond brains. The total amount of matter and energy may be increasing. Memories may not be stored as traces in our brains.* 

For many of today’s foremost scientists, the world is a strictly material place, made up of dead matter, with no intrinsic purpose, value or meaning. Consciousness is seen as solely a physical function of the brain. Sheldrake demonstrates that these principles are not incontrovertible truths, but rather assumptions that have become dangerously constrictive to the progress of real scientific discovery. With a skepticism characteristic of true scientific inquiry, he sets his sights on ten fundamental dogmas of the science, dismantling each to make room for startling new possibilities. Sheldrake is pro-science, stating, “I want the sciences to be less dogmatic and more scientific. I believe that the sciences will be regenerated when they are liberated from the dogmas that constrict them."*   

Sheldrake compellingly argues that long-held assumptions are now limiting scientific progress and preventing us from effectively meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century. The belief system governing conventional scientific thinking has become an act of faith. His recent book points the way to a return to true science, a system based on inquiry and skepticism not blind acceptance. Some of these "blind acceptances"  he explores:

Are Memories Stored as Material Traces? Repeated failures to find physical evidence of memories etched on the brain suggest another approach is needed. Seeing memory as a resonant phenomenon, which explains the observed phenomena of collective, cultural, and generational memory, belies the idea that memory decays at death, and has profound implications for both teaching and evolution*

Are the Laws of Nature Fixed? Making universal assumptions on the basis of pre-evolutionary philosophies limits our capacity to understand change and evolution. The “laws” of nature are really more like habits—for example, crystals grow as they do because they have grown that way before.

Is the Total amount of Matter and Energy Always the Same? In the last 30 years the total amount of matter and energy recognized by physics has increased more than 20-fold. Dark matter and dark energy, whose nature is literally obscure, are now believed to make up more than 96 percent of reality. Can any of this newly-discovered energy be tapped, with revolutionary effects on the world economy?

Deepak Chopra, who published this last book of Sheldrake's, speaks warmly of his work in his blog (Deepak Chopra - Science Set Free):

"Sheldrake's essential point is that science needs setting free from ten blind dogmas. These dogmas embrace a true belief system as much as Roman Catholicism or any other faith. Behind the daily activity of gathering data, science assumes certain things about reality that, according to Sheldrake, are unsupportable. The first dogma, for example, holds that the universe is mechanical. If that is so, then everything in the universe is also mechanical, including human beings - or to use a phrase from the noted atheist Richard Dawkins, we are "lumbering robots." From a scientist's perspective, to understand everything that you need to know about human beings, you only have to tinker with all the mechanical parts of genes and the brain until there are no more secrets left.

Clearly such a view leaves no room for the soul, which becomes a wispy illusion that needs to be swept away. But then, so does the self, because there is no region of the brain that contains "I," a person. As long as "I" is a hallucination formed by complex neural circuitry, one can throw out - or reduce to mechanical operations - love, beauty, truth, compassion, honor, devotion, faith, and so on, the whole apparatus that makes a person's life feel valuable. A random universe has no purpose; therefore, giving lumbering robots a purpose is dubious."

Chopra makes a wide swing to the other pole in the above statement. Would it be possible that there lies a paradoxical truth; that is, the universe is consumately automatic in every way AND also has a mostly undisclosed potential for a resonating, full intelligence?  The impending possibility that there is no fixed "I", only the potential of one-- and truth, compassion, devotion can be as mechanical as anything else, but again, because of this universal possibility contained in consciousness, it could be otherwise.  Perhaps we are coming to: these conflicting truths exist simultaneously in all and everything. We and the universe as "systems",  embody both mechanicality and an extremely sensitive organism with a layered consciousness.

Chopra continues, "The second dogma he overturns is the belief that matter is unconscious. The whole universe is filled with atoms and molecules that have no connection to intelligence, creativity, or meaning. The problem here is that nobody can explain how atoms and molecules learned to think. No matter how closely you examine the water, glucose, and electrolyte salts in the human brain, you can't find the point where these molecules became conscious. How come the sugar water in a can of Coke isn't thinking and feeling while the sugar water in your cerebral cortex is? For science to brush this problem aside as mere metaphysics doesn't make it go away.

The third dogma is that the laws of nature are fixed and haven't changed since the Big Bang. The fourth is that the amount of matter and energy in the cosmos is always the same. And so the list grows, building toward a shocking conclusion: Science has been explaining a mirage and calling it reality. Sheldrake isn't speaking as a mystic or an enemy of science - far from it. He has kept up with the most current findings in physics and biology. Among these findings are some shattering discoveries, as far as rigid dogmas are concerned:

- The universe operates more like a living organism than a machine.
- The existence of dark matter and dark energy topples the conservation of matter and energy. Because the "dark" dimension operates outside the visible universe, the notion of fixed laws of nature suddenly looks wobbly, too.
- Purpose-driven evolution may explain life better than the random mutation of classic Darwinism.
- Genes, far from being fixed and deterministic, are involved in a far more fluid interaction than anyone ever supposed.

Sheldrake works with many more intriguing discoveries; he has a delightfully inquisitive, penetrating mind. He also seems unflappable in the face of the howling protests he has raised for thirty years, beginning when none of the above findings was even suspected. If science weren't a dogmatic belief system, there would be rational responses to his challenges rather than scorn from true believers. But a major shift is occurring. Under its title in the UK, The Science Delusion (playing off Dawkins' best-selling The God Delusion) Sheldrake's new book is getting positive reviews in high places. Even more promising, a new generation of younger scientists, who are trained (unlike Dawkins) in the shifting new realities of physics, biology, and genetics, is actually intrigued by a universe permeated with consciousness, intelligence, and meaning.

Sheldrake is merciless when it comes to dogmas being preached as if they were truths, but he has a special gentleness that rises above controversy and ill-tempered arguments. "Science is more free, more fun, and more interesting," he says, "when we turn dogmas into questions instead." Can anyone seriously disagree? The beautiful part of reading Science Set Free is the Aha! moments that come unexpectedly. All of us are living with dogmas that we accept as truths. When one of these is overturned, there's an initial gasp, soon followed by a rush of exhilaration. The point of life, as Sheldrake shows so well, isn't to set science free but to set humans free, because we are more precious than any of the false gods we have created."

 Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books, including  Science Set Free (September 2012). He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge University, a Research Fellow of the Royal Society, Principal Plant Physiologist at ICRISAT (the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) in Hyderabad, India, and from 2005-2010 the Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project for research on unexplained human abilities, funded from Trinity College, Cambridge. His web site is www.sheldrake.org

Much of the above material was gleaned from Science Set Free *book releases.  His book can be found: 

Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery: Rupert Sheldrake ...

 

The Body as Political Forum

In my posts Violence: a Cautionary Truth and Use: The Alexander Technique, I broach the subjects of the impact on the body by external influence.  In other past posts I've supposed the malleability of the psych/body to cultural influence and the often disempowerment of self to these forces.  In an article, The Architecture of E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E in Performa Magazine (http://performamagazine.tumblr.com/post/33854559841/), the suggestion our bodies are a political forum because of their materiality ties these deductions together.  Author Cassie Peterson, puts forth some provocative conjecture:  "The body is a material representation of the ways we exist in relation to the social (dis)order. In her essay 'How Can We Have a Body?: Desires and Corporeality' (2006), psychoanalyst Susie Orbach writes, 'All our known ways of being create physical and neural pathways that become constitutive of self, not just on a psychological level but on a physical, material level.'  Much like Foucault, she believes that our bodies are constituted by the social discourses that shape them. She asserts, 'bodies are made, not born,' meaning that we become our 'selves' through repetition of language and social practices. Accordingly, E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E begins with a performer asking us, 'What’s the difference between uncirculated money and heart disease?'

Nothing. There is no difference. Social discord manifests as personal dis-ease. The social body is becoming in the physical body. "

a stylized (socialized?) image of the human form

She continues, "Our relationship to our bodies mimics the perpetual privatization of space and resources. We are socialized to dominate our bodies, to 'own' them, and shape them to meet idealized consumer standards. In 1975, Foucault wrote an essay called 'Docile Bodies,' in which he concluded that the more a body is coerced by dominant social forces, the more equipped it is to reproduce these same disciplinary forces unto itself and others. The more 'productive', economically viable, and groomed for service our bodies become, the less political force we have because we have become isolated in narratives of individuality and exploitation, ensnared in the competition and tyranny of the market." 

This is a powerful and meaningful conjecture.  Much of F.M. Alexander's work was about healing the impact of this relationship between the natural inner and the unnatural outer influences.  But it usually takes much physical pain and kinesthetic dysfunction for a person to seek help in addressing the negative impact of the external world on their organism.  For those who don't turn to a modality like the Alexander Technique to right the wrongs of this influence, doesn't mean they don't need it or their bodies aren't under this social influence.  Trend and fashion are at our heels (literally; five inch stiletto heels being the rigueur of urban women), at our hem lines, in the trends of cultural cuisine and the neighborhoods we choose to identify and live in.  As is indicated in Peterson's, Orbach's and Foucault's writing the apparel we cloth ourselves in force us to have a relationship with our body, for better or for worse.  Not only does it actually change the way we move and behave in our bodies, it can't help but change our perception of social issues such as poverty and probably disables our awareness of pretty much everything but the superficial. To the impacted (us), this veneer becomes our reality.  Social context becomes political.

Pina Bausch embodying the "let go"

As might be indicated by Foucault's writing on these dominant social forces, the "perfecting" of our physiques through rigorous "health" regimens is part and parcel of this concept, especially when done for appearance.  This holds true for the perfecting of anything;  a newly minted resident doctor once confided to me she was worried the medical training (which would include the social influence of the training) she had received would kill the right impulse she had in becoming the doctor she had hoped to be.  So it is with the exacting training of being an artist and maybe more so, a dancer or musician.  

The politicizing of the art of dance begins with the rigorous training and even "branding" of the type of dancer made.  A dancer doesn't become the artist until (s)he lets the training go.  It is only in the melding of the natural self to the almost militaristic trained self when the honest, authentic self is revealed and the art of it surfaces.  Perhaps I speak of "performer" more than artist in this way, as I am not at all sure that a non-trained person is not a dancer-artist. I just know that the relinquishing of the material one's cells have adopted by virtue of a long and perfecting process (training) need to be surrendered before the genuine truth of movement can be known and seen.  All those jetes and arabesques need to become fodder for the natural movement/expression impulses waiting in the wings.

All of this is an interesting premise in relation to nature, pointing once again to the enormous sensitivity of the organism.  If our bodies are indeed "made and not born" and they are "constituted by the social discourses that shape them", we as material beings are as powerlessly impacted by our surrounds and social influence as we are by the automatic release of hormones coursing through our blood stream.  There is indeed no difference between uncirculated money and heart disease.

So, are we damned to "become isolated in narratives of individuality and exploitation, ensnared in the competition and tyranny of the market."?  What makes us free? (Is that an impossible premise?)  Even though they too are subject to social influence and hormones (among other things), I turn (once again) to the young child for perspective; they are somewhat more free then the general population, social indoctrination not a huge factor until age five or so.  Young children rest in themselves and their all consuming interest in Being and response.   Their worlds are not huge yet (or is it miniscule?).  They are Nature, heavily weighted in what Is; the body's process, sensation, the ephemeral.  They are working on being indoctrinated, but they are not there yet.  They are a little more free than you and me.  What freedom they enjoy is one we could return to (partially) when we return to our more authentic nature also in our body's process, sensation and the moment.  Unlike children, we have a more global, mature and experienced intelligence to support the notion of a freedom.  It is dependent on an integrated intelligence, meaning an all of me that is informed, body, mind and spirit.  Like the highly trained dancer or medical resident, a letting go of materiality is required in order for there to be a return to the authentic, a hope for a life to become art.  And this is not an end product, a static performance, but a rich and moving process dependent on a cultivated awareness, deep interest and patience.