rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/10/89)
In article <8910071442.AA26475@uunet.uu.net> gcf@althea.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >In any case, the attacks on >feminism connected with the thread in these groups were as I have >noted: quotations from radicals are used to embarrass reformists. OK, I get it now. Yes, I understand this kind of situation. As you imply by your example (deleted for reasons of space) this has two common causes. Sometimes, people (including me) use theoretical language we don't really understand very well. This can be embarrasing later on. In the case of feminist theory, which is really getting to be quite an advanced body of work, requiring all kinds of intellectual grounding, it's easy to get lost and say things that look silly later. In this case, I think we should all just be patient with one another, and try to avoid mocking people who aren't as far as along as we imagine we are (assuming that they're open to new ideas -- not always the case on soc.feminism). Sometimes you have to make embarrassing mistakes to learn anything. The other problem is a more serious one, and has to do with committment. It's easy to get sucked into the kind of naive individualism/positivism which pervades scientific life, and thus the world of usenet. One of the greatest achievements of feminism has been to challenge this -- to show how this way of thinking inevitably serves to rationalize and justify the way things happen to be (women subordinate to men, blacks subordinate to whites, working class subordinate to "upper" class). We've been seeing this again and again in the anti-feminist "affirmative action is sexism" nonsense. It requires constant attention to keep from drifting into this lazy "natural" way of thinking. It's like housework -- it's not something you do once and for all. It's an on-going process. This is why I've been spending so much time pushing theory on this group. The crucial first step is understanding the limitations of one kind of thinking, and consciously adopting another, radically different kind: feminist, psycho-analytic, Marxist, what have you. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that the dominant way of thinking is closely linked with the preservation of dominance by those who happen to be on top. Not as a conscious conspiracy; simply as a manifestation of how power and knowledge work together. Read Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" -- he can explain this better than I ever could. >Today, after fifteen or twenty years of vigorous and successful >counterrevolution, it seems a bit much to ask that radical >feminism be successful in the streets. Yet success in academia >or the therapies of the upper middle class is not going to be >enough. Of course you're correct. The problem of action, of real practices that help real women (and men), is an enormous one. Here, the counterrevolution seems to have won the recent battles. Is all of this well developed theory really good for any practical work? I don't know the answer to this. I hope it is; I hope discussions on forums like soc.feminism will provide people with the grounding they need to make practical action meaningful. But I don't know. As a discussion group, soc.feminism is theoretical almost by definition, isn't it? Perhaps the best thing we can do here is to keep the discussion serious, critical, informed, questioning. >The fact that radical feminist quotations can be used to >embarrass feminism in general is significant, because it means >that certain things are becoming generally unthinkable. It might also mean that the intellectual challenge offered by feminism is now substantial enough that some people have begun to feel threatened and have consequently begun to strike back with their best weapon -- the appeal to "common sense", the appeal to easy ways of thinking that by a puzzling coincidence :-) justify our prejudices and sanction our inequities. Theoretical feminism might be described as a battle against the "common sense" of gender, against that huge body of assumptions about men and women which underlies the sexism we live with day to day.
mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) (10/13/89)
Richard Shapiro's article illustrates a lot of reasons why I do not trust "radical" social theory. He writes: >It's easy to get sucked into the kind of naive individualism/positivism which >pervades scientific life, and thus the world of usenet. One of the greatest >achievements of feminism has been to challenge this -- to show how this way >of thinking inevitably serves to rationalize and justify the way things >happen to be (women subordinate to men, blacks subordinate to whites, working >class subordinate to "upper" class). Something else is being illustrated here: the tendency to a sort of polarization; the inability to see middle ground. In this sort of issue, there is a tension between the fact that the actors *are* individuals, and the tendency of the actors to see themselves and others in terms of these classes. There is also the generally ignored fact that the variation within the classes is huge, and much larger than the variation between classes. The very revealing comment is made that >We've been seeing this again and again in the anti-feminist "affirmative >action is sexism" nonsense. It requires constant attention to keep from >drifting into this lazy "natural" way of thinking. Well, the problem here is simply abuse of the language. Affirmative action IS discriminatory-- it does involve making decisions on the basis of sex. This is simply a factual observation, not a moral judgement. The question which matters is: is it right? Is it desirable? I have grown suspicious of social revolutionaries because of this sort of talk. The tension between classes and individual action runs the other way, too. If the current system is tilting the scales on the basis of irrelevancies (i.e., membership in these classes), the tendency is NOT going to be to simply reverse this by metaphorically sticking one's thumb on the other side. The problem is that these responses are not neutral at all; rational people will use their class membership to whatever advantage they may in an obviously discriminatory situation. The whole question of social action issues out of suffering. But the problem is, classes do not suffer. People suffer. Radical social action has tended to ignore this distinction. As a result, the sufferers in the supposedly privileged classes are generally opposed to it; any class-based action is almost certainly going to hurt them. Perhaps the "constant attention" spoken of earlier involves learning to ignore their complaints. To be fair, criticism needs to go the other way as well. People do frequently act in groups, or act on the basis of their perceived membership in groups. But it is a fallacy to present these as alternatives. They are simply extremes in error. Wise action here requires dealing with both. You cannot have an equitable social policy which ignores the variations within groups; you also can have an equitable policy which ignores the groups altogether. In my opinion, AA leans in the direction of the former error. And it is hardly surprising that a purely theoretical advantage is going to loom small against a real loss. There is also a strong tendency here towards several classical fallacies. The argument about the status quo is simply a prettier version of "you say that because you are an X." It is convenient to be able to dismiss one's opponents arguments as appealing to their self-interest, but it is not truth. In the end, the republicans are winning because people think they are not being served by the opposition. In my opinion, some of this is just irrational thinking. But the opposition has tended to put itself in the position of advocating to too many people that they slit their throats for someone else's cause. To put it bluntly, redneck males aren't going to vote for feminism as long as feminism presents itself as an assault on them.
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/13/89)
In article <8910130354.AA03023@mimsy.UMD.EDU> mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) writes: >Richard Shapiro's article illustrates a lot of reasons why I do not trust >"radical" social theory. He writes: > [my writing deleted] >Something else is being illustrated here: the tendency to a sort of >polarization; the inability to see middle ground. I'm interested in examining the "poles" because the positions are most clearly defined there. People live at the poles; the "middle ground" is an abstraction. One is *either* male or female, and the social consequences of that distinction affect everyone. In theory, there's a middle ground; in practice, everyone goes through one door or the other (in Lacan's famous drawing). > In this sort of issue, >there is a tension between the fact that the actors *are* individuals, and >the tendency of the actors to see themselves and others in terms of these >classes. This begins to become too general of an argument to really belong on soc.feminism. In my thinking (lessons learned from feminism), the most productive way to understand social phenomena like gender is to look at individuals as secondary creations, as products of various larger classes. Social classes determine individual subjectivity (for example, "masculine" and "feminine"), not vice versa. The relevant actors are social, not individual. It's a comforting illusion to imagine that each individual is fully autonomous and self-willed; but it's nothing more than an illusion. Individuals (me, you, anyone) are artifacts of the various social contexts which form them. >The very revealing comment is made that > >>We've been seeing this again and again in the anti-feminist "affirmative >>action is sexism" nonsense. It requires constant attention to keep from >>drifting into this lazy "natural" way of thinking. > >Well, the problem here is simply abuse of the language. Affirmative action >IS discriminatory-- it does involve making decisions on the basis of sex. >This is simply a factual observation, not a moral judgement. The question >which matters is: is it right? Is it desirable? Actually I said "sexist", not "discriminatory". But the two are more or less equivalent in this context. You can pretend that calling an action "discriminatory" is factual and not moral, but this is disingenuous, to say the least. This is actually very much in keeping with your voluntarist perspective. It's as if discourse were completely up to each individual speaker, rather than being a social construction. OF COURSE it's a moral judgement to call an action "discriminatory"; OF COURSE that's much more than a "simple factual observation". As a single speaker of English, you don't have the power to write out the connotations of a particular choice of words. I'm not sure what abuse of language you're accusing me of; but here, clearly, is an abuse. >other side. The problem is that these responses are not neutral at all; >rational people will use their class membership to whatever advantage they >may in an obviously discriminatory situation. Who says neutrality is a desirable thing? As explained before, neutrality has the effect of keeping things as they are. In actual practice, neutrality is never neutral, unless the situation as given is already itself neutral. Feminists have no rational basis for preferring this kind of pseudo-neutrality. Quite the contrary, in fact; they might well regard it as one of their functions to expose the lie which underlies "neutrality". >The whole question of social action issues out of suffering. But the >problem is, classes do not suffer. People suffer. Women "suffer" BECAUSE they're women; blacks suffer BECAUSE they're black. There is nothing specific to any given individual which underlies this, it is a group phenomenon. We end the suffering of particular woman by ending discrimination against women AS A CLASS. No other course of action makes sense. >someone else's cause. To put it bluntly, redneck males aren't going to vote >for feminism as long as feminism presents itself as an assault on them. So let's appease the redneck males? Is that your suggestion? Anything for a vote? Feminism IS an assault on male advantage. If "redneck males" actively or passively support these advantages, feminism is an assualt on them. Anti-apartheid groups don't get the votes of right wing Afrikaaners. Does that make them wrong, either morally or tactically? Of course people cling to their privileges, of course they're likely to resist those who seem to threaten those privileges. What's your point in raising this at all? There's a real conflict here -- we all know that. Not everyone supports the goals of feminism and some people (men and women) will actively work against those goals. Other people want privileges AND they want to make noise about equality. There's the "middle ground". Personally, I don't find it very tempting...
mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) (10/18/89)
Richard Shapiro again: >I'm interested in examining the "poles" because the positions are most >clearly defined there. People live at the poles; the "middle ground" >is an abstraction. One is *either* male or female, and the social >consequences of that distinction affect everyone. The problem is that the "social consequences" here is itself an abstraction. The real consequences of gender vary from individual to individual; in spite of the limited number of genders, the range of consequences are spread all over the place. Also, a lot of those supposed consequences are contaminated by many other factors over which there is a lot of variation. Income stands out as an example here. One's gender creates two poles only under the assumption that the reaction of others to this gender is a constant. In practice, it is not. >In my thinking (lessons learned from feminism), the most productive way to >understand social phenomena like gender is to look at individuals as >secondary creations, as products of various larger classes. The problem is, this is known to be a fallacy: the fallacy of composition. The behavior and interest of groups need be those of its members. The two can only be connected to the extent that the behavior/interests of the group derive from that of the members. The fallacy of composition is frequently found in political writings (and all writings about social action are by their nature political writings). >It's a comforting illusion to imagine that each individual is fully >autonomous and self-willed; but it's nothing more than an illusion. It is seemingly comforting to the social scientist to imagine that the individual autonomy and will are illusory, but the very real variation in individual action shows that this is also an illusion. The truth is in the middle. People have some degree of self-will, but they also participate in the direction given by groups in which they fall, again to some degree. >Actually I said "sexist", not "discriminatory". But the two are more or >less equivalent in this context. You can pretend that calling an >action "discriminatory" is factual and not moral, but this is >disingenuous, to say the least. Well, the two are NOT equivalent. All you have to do is look in the dictionary. Besides the fact that they are given quite different definitions, there is also the very real matter of etymology. "Discrimination" as a social pejorative grows out of the older sense of the word; the moral connotation attached to it arises from the judgement that certain characteristics are not properly grounds for choosing between two people. Sexism, on the other hand, has no such roots. And the dictionary reflects this. I'll admit to being somewhat disingenious here, but you seem to have missed the point. There is a moral opinion here about the propriety of sex as a basis for decision. Regardless of what word you use, this opinion is what the word expresses. >Who says neutrality is a desirable thing? As explained before, >neutrality has the effect of keeping things as they are. I say neutrality is a desirable thing. No one has right to gender as an advantage, and especially not without regard to what other advantage they may have. The notion that the husband in a homeless family enjoys a meaningful advantage over Kathryn Graham is laughable, and Ms. Graham is not entitled to any "counteracting" advantage over him simply because of her gender. If neutrality is the goal, and the current situation is not neutral, then neutrality means change. >Women "suffer" BECAUSE they're women; blacks suffer BECAUSE they're >black. There is nothing specific to any given individual which >underlies this, it is a group phenomenon. Nonsense. A woman suffers because ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL acts on the basis of her gender. It is a group phenomenon only to the extent that her membership in the group is made the basis of action. >We end the suffering of particular woman by ending discrimination against >women AS A CLASS. But to end this means to end acts of discrimination against women. Adding a supposedly compensatory discrimination against men doesn't do this. On the average, things may look better, but this may well be acheived by simply improving the lot of already privileged women and worsening the situation for disadvantaged men. >So let's appease the redneck males? Is that your suggestion? Anything >for a vote? Feminism IS an assault on male advantage. If "redneck >males" actively or passively support these advantages, feminism is an >assualt on them. The point you are missing is that these people are *already* getting screwed by *other* factors. If a man is already worried about losing his job, he is hardly going to lie down for someone (who, it might be noted, is not usually at any risk of beig hurt here) who suggests that he give up his job in the defense of some abstract social virtue. *Especially* since he isn't the one who made the decision in the first place! People ought to object to suggestions that they be harmed for the sake of another's sins. The practical issue here, may I remind you, is whether action beyond insistence upon non-discrimination is legitimate. My position is that discriminatory action against men is not legitimate. It oversteps getting rid of "male advantage". It does not end discrimination against women. I should point out, Richard, that you cannot legitimately claim to speak for all men. And I would suspect that you are confident of not losing your advantages because of the actions you advocate. This is an example of my complaint. Your interests are not the interests of those who are not as secure as you are. When you start throwing economic leverage around as a weapon for social policy, economic divisions loom large against all others. And, as never seems to register, ecomonic differences within the genders vastly predominate differences between the genders.
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/18/89)
In article <8910140446.AA08021@mimsy.UMD.EDU> mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) writes: >> [I paraphrase the position which regards individuals as secondary formations] >The problem is, this is known to be a fallacy: the fallacy of >composition. You're entitled to your view of the world but that doesn't make other views "fallacies". The point of view I've summarized is not "known" by anyone to be a fallacy. It's a point of view, like yours. I happen to think it's more productive in its explanatory power. It's also the dominant perspective in contemporary feminist theory, so I'd say I'm not alone in employing it, or regarding it as useful. Argue if you like; a cry of "fallacy" is not an argument. >>Actually I said "sexist", not "discriminatory". But the two are more or >>less equivalent in this context. > >Well, the two are NOT equivalent. All you have to do is look in the >dictionary. The dictionary definition of sexism (Webster's New Collegiate): "prejudice or discrimination based on sex, esp. discrimination against women". OK? Perhaps it's worth remembering the larger context here. I used the word "sexism", you paraphrased it as "discrimination", I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and now you seem to be offering me a lecture on the difference between the two... >A woman suffers because ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL acts on the >basis of her gender. It is a group phenomenon only to the extent that >her membership in the group is made the basis of action. This is astonishing in its naivete. Sexism is about much much more than the conscious acts of individuals. It has as much (or more) to do with our feelings towards ourselves as it has to do with the actions of specific "others" towards us. These days, explicit and intentional acts of sexism by one individual against another are comparatively rare and are almost never acknowledged as such by the perpetrator. Sexism thrives in the way we look at ourselves, in the acts which we unwittingly perform with the best of intentions (i.e. not consciously on the basis of gender), in the attitues which we share as a common basis and which have therefore become invisible to us. Your statement exemplifies perfectly the explanatory weakness of the individualist position. Sexism is a group phenomenon because it *transcends* any single individual. The evidence is all around you. >> Feminism IS an assault on male advantage. If "redneck >>males" actively or passively support these advantages, feminism is an >>assualt on them. > >The point you are missing is that these people are *already* getting >screwed by *other* factors. I haven't missed this, you just deleted it from the your quotations. I've stressed several times the importance of race, class, etc. The interconnections between all of these are certainly complex. Within each class, male privilege continues to exist and continues to be a legitimate target for feminists. If you want to say something like "poor men have it bad enough already, we shouldn't bug them about sexism", I completely disagree with you. Sexism is no less real and no less destructive just because it coexists with other injustices. >The practical issue here, may I remind you, is whether action beyond >insistence upon non-discrimination is legitimate. My position is that >discriminatory action against men is not legitimate. It oversteps >getting rid of "male advantage". It does not end discrimination >against women. I await your suggestions for actions which will end sexism, but which will not work by ending male privilege. Without a concrete suggestion, I can only conclude that such a strategy is as much of a "have your cake and eat it too" fantasy as it seems to be on the surface. >I should point out, Richard, that you cannot legitimately claim to >speak for all men. Have I ever maid this claim or even suggested it? Where does the insinuation that I have done so come from? This is pretty low-class debating. > And I would suspect that you are confident of not >losing your advantages because of the actions you advocate. And you would be wrong. What possible grounds do you have for making a statement like this anyway? Perhaps for you, short-sighted selfishness is the only effective motivation. But don't assume everyone is so limited in their principles.
turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (10/21/89)
In article <8910140446.AA08021@mimsy.UMD.EDU> mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) writes: > >A woman suffers because ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL acts on the > >basis of her gender. It is a group phenomenon only to the extent that > >her membership in the group is made the basis of action. In article <47048@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > This is astonishing in its naivete. Sexism is about much much more > than the conscious acts of individuals. It has as much (or more) to do > with our feelings towards ourselves as it has to do with the actions > of specific "others" towards us. These days, explicit and intentional > acts of sexism by one individual against another are comparatively > rare and are almost never acknowledged as such by the perpetrator. > Sexism thrives in the way we look at ourselves, in the acts which we > unwittingly perform with the best of intentions (i.e. not consciously > on the basis of gender), in the attitues which we share as a common > basis and which have therefore become invisible to us. Your statement > exemplifies perfectly the explanatory weakness of the individualist > position. Sexism is a group phenomenon because it *transcends* any > single individual. The evidence is all around you. What is incongruous about the the above paragraph is that the important parts have little to do with what is so vehemently argued. That sexism is often subconcious as well as concious, that is more often tacit than overt, and that it has as much to do with self-perception as it does with perceptions of others -- these are not insights that require the assumption that groups are primary and individuals secondary in any metaphysical or moral sense. None of these claims conflict with commonsense individualism, which Mr Shapiro seems to dislike. It is not at all clear to me precisely what "individualist" or "voluntarist" priciples Mr Shapiro is trying to fight, though such words certainly set him off. Some of the points he wishes to make to Mr Wingate regarding sexism are clear, but their connection to this other issue is not. Russell
avery@well.UUCP (Avery Ray Colter) (10/24/89)
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >Who says neutrality is a desirable thing? >So let's appease the redneck males? Is that your suggestion? Anything >for a vote? Feminism IS an assault on male advantage. If "redneck >males" actively or passively support these advantages, feminism is an >assualt on them. Anti-apartheid groups don't get the votes of right >wing Afrikaaners. Does that make them wrong, either morally or >tactically? So, in other words, this is most definitely a WAR, and neither that word nor actions taken under its auscipes are anything to be ashamed of. I am not saying I disagree with this. Indeed, it makes a lot of sense to me. I'm just saying that if we are going to interpret the situation as a state of war, we should not be ashamed or afraid of the potentially nasty things which will surely result. I am a partisan. I understand your words. Feminism has some definite enemies. The question is what to do with them. -- Avery Ray Colter (415) 451-7786 | Now, class, repeat after me: {apple|ucbvax|pacbell}!well!avery | ICH LIEBE DIE BELEIBTEN LEIBEN, avery@well.sf.ca.us | UND HUPFENDE HUEFTE HABE ICH GERN!
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/25/89)
In article <7064@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) writes: >What is incongruous about the the above paragraph [deleted] is that the >important parts have little to do with what is so vehemently >argued. That sexism is often subconcious as well as concious, >that is more often tacit than overt, and that it has as much to >do with self-perception as it does with perceptions of others -- >these are not insights that require the assumption that groups >are primary and individuals secondary in any metaphysical or >moral sense. None of these claims conflict with commonsense >individualism, which Mr Shapiro seems to dislike. You've lost the context here. The claim is consistently being made that sexism consists EXCLUSIVELY of specific acts by one individual against another (in one person's charmingly naive formulation "Only individuals are real"). And that therefore the appropriate remedy is for the offending individuals to change their (conscious) behavior. Change every sexist individual and you've eliminated sexism. The assumptions here are clear: individuals form groups rather than vice versa (individualism); and attitudes are purely a matter of individual will and conscious choice (voluntarism). I believe that both of these assumptons are wrong and that the strategy of eliminating sexism through (voluntaristic) efforts of will by individuals can never succeed. A lot of detail follows. I hope those of you who plan to criticize my ideas will take the trouble to read through it (don't expect any kind of response if you don't). When I refer to "the unconscious", the notion I have is basically Freud's. There are more casual ways of talking about the "subconscious", but I don't know of any well-theorized approaches other than Freud's. In this theory, the will is an artifact of the formation of the ego -- an effort of will can NEVER affect the unconscious. To claim otherwise is what I'm calling "voluntarism" -- the fallacy that the conscious subject is fully autonomous. That subjects *feel* autonomous is no argument -- it's almost the definition of "subject" that they should feel so. If sexism works via the unconscious (as you apparently agree it does), any remedy which relies on changing the behaviors of specific offending individuals can never be anything more than superficial and temporary -- precisely the effect we're see today. Change people's behaviors and the sexism, which remains untouched, simply shifts its ground. This is fairly simple Freudianism. Treat a neurotic behavior (as a behavior) and it reappears in another, less obvious, guise. Further: while there are of course variations from individual to individual, much (perhaps most) of what forms the unconscious of any given person is social in nature. It's shared by all the members of whatever group you choose to consider. Thus, the many factors which make up what we call "feminine" and "masculine" reside (mostly) in the unconscious, and are shared by everyone (in a given group at a given time). The individual variations are quite minor compared to the shared basis. We acquire these concepts through a variety of means, most of which are implicit (i.e. not because someone sits you down and says "Here are the differences between men and women"). The crucial point is that these shared attitudes are so basic to the formation of the individual that they are not generally visible as such. They are the framework in which we exist as individual subjects. We can only see them if we can come up with another framework which provides different, and more convincing, interpretations of the same raw material (the behaviors or, in Freudian language, the symptoms). Feminism is a theory which provides such a framework for gender. "Common sense", on the other hand, refers to a refusal or an inability to question the framework or even to recognize that there is one at work. In other words, a refusal to recognize an interpretation as something other than a fact. It's obvious (I hope) that common sense is a very conservative perspective -- its whole purpose is to naturalize a set of interpretations (about gender, for instance) into universal and eternal facts. Now my contention is that it is our shared conceptions of masculine and feminine, men and women, that are the source of sexism. In other words, that the common sense our society is systematically patriarchal or phallocratic* (the latter term seems more accurate to me); and that any given individual shares in this sexism simply as a result of being a well-formed member of society (via the unconscious). He or she is NOT the source of sexism; there are NOT good guys (non sexist) and bad guys (sexist); and therefore the job of feminism is NOT to convert bad guys into good guys. Rather it is to expose this framework for what it is (the theory) and to change the social structures so that future generations will have different, non-sexist conceptions of gender (the practice). >It is not at all clear to me precisely what "individualist" or >"voluntarist" priciples Mr Shapiro is trying to fight, though >such words certainly set him off. I hope it's clear now, after all that. Sexism does not derive from what one individual does to another, but rather the converse. Altering behaviors of individuals (either voluntarily or under compulsion) can never do anything more than shift sexism to less clearly visible forms. This sets me off because it refuses to recognize (or, of course, to alter) the real source of the trouble. It is a highly conservative and defensive approach which acts to PRESERVE sexism by hiding its symptoms. * I can provide references for readings on this subject. I don't intend to act like a school teacher here -- if you're interested PLEASE READ something substantial on the subject. I'm getting a little tired of arguing with people who don't want to take that trouble.
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (10/25/89)
In article <47221@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: >When I refer to "the unconscious", the notion I have is basically >Freud's. There are more casual ways of talking about the Very interesting that the arch-sexist himself (Freud) is employed to argue a feminist position. Why we should accept Freud's authority in a day when he has been scientifically discredited is another question. I will postulate the existence of unconscious processes. That notion preceeded Freud, although he never gave anyone but himself credit for that. >This is fairly >simple Freudianism. Treat a neurotic behavior (as a behavior) and it >reappears in another, less obvious, guise. It is simple and never has been established. When people with phobias (classic "neuroses") are treated and cured by behavioral therapy, no one (including Freudians) has been able to identify the neurotic substitution that (according to Freud) should have occurred. Until someone does, why should we believe in substitution theory? >Further: while there are of course variations from individual to >individual, much (perhaps most) of what forms the unconscious of any >given person is social in nature. It's shared by all the members of >whatever group you choose to consider. Thus, the many factors which >make up what we call "feminine" and "masculine" reside (mostly) in the >unconscious, and are shared by everyone (in a given group at a given >time). The individual variations are quite minor compared to the >shared basis. But if the unconscious is inaccessable how can you know all this about it? This sounds purely speculative to me. What evidence do we have that what you are saying is true? Is this "data" that has been induced from pseudoscientific analytic studies? I think we have to be very careful in statements about what forms the unconscious. What comes out in psychoanalysis is so contaminated by the disrigor of the method as to be worthless, in my view. Or are you one who values psychoanalysis so highly as to feel it transcends the normal rules of evidence? >Now my contention is that it is our shared conceptions of masculine >and feminine, men and women, that are the source of sexism. In other >words, that the common sense our society is systematically patriarchal >or phallocratic* (the latter term seems more accurate to me); and that >any given individual shares in this sexism simply as a result of being >a well-formed member of society (via the unconscious). He or she is >NOT the source of sexism; there are NOT good guys (non sexist) and bad >guys (sexist); and therefore the job of feminism is NOT to convert bad >guys into good guys. Rather it is to expose this framework for what it >is (the theory) and to change the social structures so that future >generations will have different, non-sexist conceptions of gender (the >practice). It would then seem that by imposing coercive measures such as affirmative action, you will only invite reaction (in Freudian terms) and will do no good whatsoever. How does coercion fit into your psychoanalytic framework, anyhow? Within your model, your task is basically an educational one, is it not? And you must start with infants. >* I can provide references for readings on this subject. I don't >intend to act like a school teacher here -- if you're interested >PLEASE READ something substantial on the subject. I'm getting a little >tired of arguing with people who don't want to take that trouble. Yes, of course, and others can provide references for their views and theories. Are you prepared to read those also? Otherwise, you are acting like a school teacher (no offense intended, really).
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (10/25/89)
In article <47221@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > ... The claim is consistently being made > that sexism consists EXCLUSIVELY of specific acts by one individual > against another (in one person's charmingly naive formulation "Only > individuals are real"). And that therefore the appropriate remedy is > for the offending individuals to change their (conscious) behavior. > Change every sexist individual and you've eliminated sexism. The > assumptions here are clear: individuals form groups rather than vice > versa (individualism); and attitudes are purely a matter of individual > will and conscious choice (voluntarism). I believe that both of these > assumptons are wrong and that the strategy of eliminating sexism > through (voluntaristic) efforts of will by individuals can never > succeed. ... > > When I refer to "the unconscious", the notion I have is basically > Freud's. ... In this theory, the will is an artifact of the > formation of the ego -- an effort of will can NEVER affect the > unconscious. To claim otherwise is what I'm calling "voluntarism" -- > the fallacy that the conscious subject is fully autonomous. ... > > Further: while there are of course variations from individual to > individual, much (perhaps most) of what forms the unconscious of any > given person is social in nature. It's shared by all the members of > whatever group you choose to consider. Thus, the many factors which > make up what we call "feminine" and "masculine" reside (mostly) in the > unconscious, and are shared by everyone (in a given group at a given > time). The individual variations are quite minor compared to the > shared basis. We acquire these concepts through a variety of means, > most of which are implicit (i.e. not because someone sits you down and > says "Here are the differences between men and women"). The crucial > point is that these shared attitudes are so basic to the formation of > the individual that they are not generally visible as such. ... It seems to me that you have posed two extreme positions, and then denounced the flaws of one while ignoring the equally large flaws of the other, which you proceed to support. I will try to show the middle ground, which I prefer not because it falls between the two extremes, but because I think it more accurate. First, allow me to note the points where we agree. (1) There is a subconcious which impels our behavior and emotions. (2) The contents of one's subconcious are largely formed tacitly, through one's early interactions with family, friends, and others in the social groups to which one belongs. (3) This interaction between individuals gives rise to a very real cultural (group) dynamic. Our first disagreement concerns whether one can change one's subconcious. You are correct in criticizing the idea that an undesired attitude can be changed simply by recognizing it and wishing it away. On the other hand, the subconcious is not totally impervious to outside influence, nor is the dividing line between concious and subcious absolutely fixed. Changing one's subconcious and moving some parts of it into the concious realm are precisely what activities such as psychoanalysis, behavior modification, and hypnotic regression are all about, and even simple measures such as introspection and dialogue may have some effects on the subconcious if the effort is honest. The proof of this is that people do change in significant ways. A male chauvinist pig at twenty may not be so at thirty (though he will almost certainly be so at twenty one.) To what extent these different methods work and how much one can change are issues which the different schools of psychology hotly contest. But it is foolish to deny that life changes one, including one's subconcious. And how and what one thinks conciously can drastically alter the course of one's life, and hence, one's subconcious. Having done with voluntarism, our next disagreement is individualism. Consider, if one could change all sexist individuals sufficiently, if one were a god or Liebniz's demon and could rewrite not just people's concious beliefs but also the subconcious things that dwell within them, what then? Would this not erase sexism? Of course. In this metaphysical sense, individuals are primary. There is no miasmic force that lies outside the psyches of individuals and which creates Jungian archetypes or other metaphysical attributes associated with groups. What creates groups is not ontology, but history, origins, economics, and other social interactions. Of course, none of us is Liebniz's demon. We cannot reshape everyone's psyche to our desires, nor even each mold one's own in perfect freedom. It resists, and there is also a delicious paradox about thinking that one can achieve such a goal when the path to it necessarily changes the goal one desires, and even the way one thinks about goals. So how does one ever reach a goal such as the eradication of sexism? You write: > ... therefore the job of feminism is NOT to convert bad > guys into good guys. Rather it is to expose this framework for > what it is (the theory) and to change the social structures so > that future generations will have different, non-sexist conceptions > of gender (the practice). But who is going to expose the sexist framework if not the "good guys"? (Given Beauvoir, Stein, French, etc, "good women" is more appropriate.) Those who expose a framework must first become concious of some things that most of us have only in our subconciouses. Who is to change the social structures if not those who are convinced by the good women? And how can we possible raise our children with less sexist conceptions of gender unless we first make the effort to bring about some small change in our own understanding of gender? In short, the job of feminism is to convert bad guys into better guys, help bad guys raise better children, and persuade bad guys to change the ways we deal with each other. How else do you propose to change the way society is structured tomorrow? Russell
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/25/89)
In article <1989Oct24.211107.9199@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >Very interesting that the arch-sexist himself (Freud) is employed >to argue a feminist position. It is indeed interesting to see that Freud's model is productive even in contexts which disagree with his own particular conclusions. This is exactly the point of Irigaray's book -- she uses Freud's concepts to deconstruct his own highly unsatisfactory ideas about the feminine, thus demonstrating the resilience of the general model. Freud made mistakes like anyone else, and his general theory is good enough to uncover those mistakes. > Why we should accept Freud's >authority in a day when he has been scientifically discredited >is another question. This is not the place to argue the relationship between science and psychoanalysis. Freud's general model provides convincing and coherent explanations for the observed facts about gender, far more convincing and complete than any strict empiricist model. The supposed "discrediting" is really nothing more than a difference in paradigm between empirical science and psychoanalysis. The former cannot provide a good accounting of gender; the latter can do so (though of course other conceptual frameworks might do even better -- I just don't know what they are). That's enough "accrediting" for me. Of course there's no way for you to know this if you refuse to investigate (feminist) psychoanalysis. >>* I can provide references for readings on this subject. >Yes, of course, and others can provide references for their >views and theories. Are you prepared to read those also? Either I'll read them, or I'll shut up about them. Will you do likewise? PA is a highly evolved and sophisticated (and rigorous) conceptual model, and it takes some kind of education to understand it. You really can't expect your comments to be taken seriously if you're speaking from ignorance.
mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) (10/28/89)
It is clear to me that Richard Shapiro doesn't understand my position, because he keeps arguing against a position I don't hold. In reply to Russell Turpin, he writes: >The claim is consistently being made that sexism consists EXCLUSIVELY of >specific acts by one individual against another (in one person's charmingly >naive formulation "Only individuals are real"). And that therefore the >appropriate remedy is for the offending individuals to change their >(conscious) behavior. Change every sexist individual and you've eliminated >sexism. Ignoring the exagerration here, I have an observation and a correction. First, the use of the passive voice. The claim was made *by specific people* (me, I suppose, for one). This avoidance of individuals seems to run rather deep here. Second, the word "conscious", which Mr. Shapiro has parenthetically injected into the supposed argument. Now, "conscious" is his contribution, not mine. In my opinion, it is a straw man. Whether or not behavior is conscious or unconscious, it remains individual. Reaction to social manipulation likewise remains individual. The point I've been trying make here has nothing to do with unconscious or conscious at all; it has to do with modelling reality. As regards to this modelling, Mr. Shapiro claims: >The assumptions here are clear: individuals form groups rather than vice >versa (individualism); and attitudes are purely a matter of individual >will and conscious choice (voluntarism). Well, if you can explain to me how groups form individuals, I might believe such a proposition. The second statement is, as I already indicated, Mr. Shapiro's projection, and is wrong. We then move on to a foundation in the far from universally accepted freudian hypothesis on the unconscious. After a few more straw men, we get to the following: >If sexism works via the unconscious (as you apparently agree it does), any >remedy which relies on changing the behaviors of specific offending >individuals can never be anything more than superficial and temporary -- >precisely the effect we're see today. I do not think that this follows from anything at all. First of all, in *freudian* theory the unconscious IS individual; hence, insofar as it is the cause of our problems here, it is individual unconsciouses which need be altered. Hence, there is at least a potential need for individual action, unless you can guarantee that all the unconsciouses are going to react in the same way. You can't, and evidewnce suggests that they won't. In the second place, if the root cause of the change is IN the unconscious, then to change the behavior IS to change the unconscious. In any case, this is not an argument against how action is to be organized; it is an argument against kinds of actions. In point of fact, it is an argument against AA. AA's entire immediate effect is to force some people to change their behavior-- indeed, the success of the treatment is measured entirely in that behavior. This argument makes a case against *any* sort of coercive political action. Having just shot down coercion, Mr. Shapiro goes on to another dubious claim: >Further: while there are of course variations from individual to >individual, much (perhaps most) of what forms the unconscious of any >given person is social in nature. It's shared by all the members of >whatever group you choose to consider. I would agree with the first statement, but here social simply means "acquired through interaction with other people." And even in similar situations, the outcome seems to be highly variable. The situations themselves are *extremely* variable. Again, I think that reality argues against actions over groups; the reaction to these actions is, in practice, extremely variable. It's often quite unreliable precisely because the socialization of the suggestor and that of the target are quite different. >"Common sense", on the other hand, refers to a refusal or an inability >to question the framework or even to recognize that there is one at >work. It seems here that "common sense" is a convenient tag against anyone who refuses to lie down in defeat before the errors of the freudian framework. Common sense here is being criticized for observing that reality simply is not like what Mr. Shapiro would have it be. The fact is variation, not similarity. >It's obvious (I hope) that common sense is a very conservative perspective -- >its whole purpose is to naturalize a set of interpretations (about gender, >for instance) into universal and eternal facts. Actually, common sense *in this realm* is not conservative at all. Mr. Shapiro represents orthodoxy; common sense challenges that orthodoxy. In light of all this argument, the claim that >Now my contention is that it is our shared conceptions of masculine >and feminine, men and women, that are the source of sexism. ... is quite ludicrous to me. It should be obvious that Mr. Shapiro and I have *wildly* divergent conceptions of what is going on here. Certainly Mr. Shapiro and the legendary sexist male have different conceptions. This statement is strong evidence that things are not as he says they are, that individual variation is far from negligible. Mr. Shapiro ends with an insult about the education of his opponents. I have read enough of this literature to evaluate it. The problem with the orthodoxy he espouses is that it simply isn't true. Group action has been tried on MANY social problems, and has a long history of failure. -- C. Wingate + "Taste and touch and vision to discern thee fail; + faith, that comes by hearing, pierces through the veil. mangoe@cs.umd.edu + I believe whate'er the Son of God hath told; mimsy!mangoe + what the Truth hath spoken, that for truth I Hold."