Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon From: geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: theory and action Message-ID: <1989Oct24.211107.9199@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> Date: 24 Oct 89 21:11:07 GMT References: <8910130354.AA03023@mimsy.UMD.EDU> <8910140446.AA08021@mimsy.UMD.EDU> <47048@bbn.COM> <7064@cs.utexas.edu> <47221@bbn.COM> Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA. Lines: 70 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <47221@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro 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).