Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!usenet From: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: theory and action Message-ID: <47221@bbn.COM> Date: 24 Oct 89 19:05:21 GMT References: <8910130354.AA03023@mimsy.UMD.EDU> <8910140446.AA08021@mimsy.UMD.EDU> <47048@bbn.COM> <7064@cs.utexas.edu> Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) Reply-To: Richard Shapiro Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 103 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu 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.