As I've mentioned before, I came to feminist theory through philosophy, and one of the first explicitly feminist texts I read was bell hooks' Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. We read the book for a class called Democracy and Eduction, and while a lot of the books had a lasting effect on me, Teaching to Transgress is the one I still go back to from time to time. And, like all of hooks' books (at least the one's I've read), it's not just about it's central subject matter--she infuses her ideas about race, class and gender (among other things) throughout the work, even though it is technically a work on pedagogy. One simple thing that I've taken away from the book is that teaching and learning happen every day, and that, given an approach that opens the minds of others, people tend to be very interested in talking about feminist issues. hooks describes this phenomena early on in Teaching to Transgress:
"I am grateful that I can stand here and testify that if we hold fast to our beliefs that feminist thinking must be shared with everyone, whether through talking or writing, and create theory with this agenda in mind we can advance feminist movement that folks will long--yes, yearn--to be a part of. I share feminist thinking and practice wherever I am. When asked to talk in university settings, I search out other setting or respond to those who search me out so that I can give the riches of feminist thinking to anyone. Sometimes setting emerge spontaneously. At a black-owned restaurant in the South, for instance, I sat for hours with a diverse group of black women and men from various class backgrounds discussing issues of race, gender and class. Some of us were college-educated, others were not. We had a heated discussion of abortion, discussing whether black women should have the right to choose."--pp 72-73, Teaching to Transgress.The more one gets exposed to the ideas within feminism, the more one sees that lessons to be learned (and taught) are everywhere, and that one has a sort of embarrassment of riches as far as being able to show, for example, that pop culture tends to encourage misogyny. And one has a chance to talk with people about this stuff almost every day.
The other day I was on a conference call with a few of the people I work with often, two men around my age, when one started teasing the other about having worn a pink shirt. I eventually asked the person doing the teasing what colors he though men should wear, and what colors they shouldn't. In high school during the late 80's, we all wore pink shirts for at least a short while, after all, I pointed out. We ended up having a nice little discussion about it, and about how it's ok for men to wear 'salmon' but not 'pink', even if they are the same color. I'm not so naive so as to think that these men are now feminists, having had such a discussion--but we managed to have a discussion about traditional gender roles and their place in society, which I consider a feminist issue. A few days later, I had a conversation with a 5-year old daughter of a friend, who wanted to show me her 'princess' shoes. I told her they were nice, but that I didn't really like princesses. "Why not?" she asked. "They're kind of boring." She looked at me like I was crazy, and I simply said: It's ok for you to like princesses, but not everybody likes princesses. Again, I don't kid myself about countering the massive tide-of-princess-iness that this girl has been inundated with since the time she could consume media--but sometimes one little voice sticks in one's head. So you never know.
Maybe when she's older I can loan her my bell hooks books.
10 comments:
I am going to take you seriously, Jeff, when you say you wouldn't mind engaging in some disagreement.
I search out other setting or respond to those who search me out so that I can give the riches of feminist thinking to anyone.
I always have to wonder if people are joking or trying to pull a fast-one on me when they claim "feminist" theory opens up new worlds by smashing down methodological brick-walls. I've seen you intimate -- also I think I've seen this possibly on Roy's No Cookie blog, and I think on Thinking Girl's blog as well (when she was posting) -- that feminism leads to good critical thinking. That you're not really a good critical thinker unless you're a feminist or you come to the same conclusions.
I'm not saying you claimed that explicitly, but I think you all hint at it.
No offense, but I don't really see feminist thinking or theory as offering vast eye-opening riches in interpreting the world, pop culture, or art in general.
From my experience most of my fellow students who get caught up in theory, politics of one sort or another, or Cultural Studies inevitably persist in misreading most literary works (one of my fields) or perpetually focusing on a small amount of sub-text that ignores the breadth and beauty of a much larger work.
This quote from the proclaimed 'equity' feminist/accused anti-feminst Christina Hoff Sommers captures the phenomena of the problems of the "feminist"/political classroom extremely well:
"I attended Professor Edelman's Class on the day he discussed gender roles in Hitchcock's The Thirty-Nine Steps [for his course "Hitchcock: Cinema, Gender, Ideology] . . . I spoke at length with Professor Edelman. His background is in literary deconstruction, a style of criticism he deploys to read every 'text' (be it a novel, film, song, or TV commercial) as an expression, if not a weapon, of the oppressor culture. He believes the purpose of teaching is to challenge the culture by debunking ("deconstructing") its 'texts.' He believes good teaching is adversarial. . . . Edelman was fun to listen to, even when he kept insisting the students must learn to see how sex bias is inscribed in every cultural artifact, every work of art, every novel, every movie. The students were learning a lot about how Hitchcock exploited sexual themes, but from where I sat there was a lot they were not learning, including why Hitchcock is considered a great filmmaker. They were not learning about his mastery in building suspense. They were not told, nor could they explain, why The Thirty-Nine Steps had set a new style for cinematic dialogue. The Tufts students were being taught to 'see through' Hitchcock's films before they had learned to look at them and before they knew much about why they should be studying them in the first place. Nothing the students said indicated they had learned much about Hitchcock or his work. By the time Edelman got through 'unmasking' the sexism of The Thirty-Nine Steps, the students' disdain for it would have left them with little incentive to regard Hitchcock as a great filmmaker. They were learning what Hitchcock was 'really' up to, and that, apparently, was what mattered. These omissions are characteristic of much teaching that goes on in the contemporary classroom. Today's students are culturally undernourished. The college English class is the one oppurtunity for students to be exposed to great poetry, short stories, novels, and theater. If they do not learn to respect and enjoy good literature in college, they probably never will" - Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? 105-106.
This quote from the feminist who brought us French Feminism also echoes many of Sommers's themes:
"If students do not find evidence of racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism, they tend to assume that either the writer or the teacher is guilty of a cover-up. The other major reason many students have difficulty reading literary texts is that, because they are not omnivorous readers, they do not hear echoes of earlier texts in the texts they read; they do not know the pleasures of intertextuality. . . . In a sense, the students were denying Hurston the right to write in a certain style, the right to write against the doxa and discourse of her time and place. They coud read Dust Tracks on a Road only in terms of racism and sexism. And because they could not find in it what they were looking for, they denied themselves the pleasures of discovering a new and different text, another mode of writing and reading. These are some of what I consider to be the perverse effects of and caveats for feminism at the millennium" - Elaine Marks, "Feminism's Perverse Effects" in Theories Empire ed. Daphne Patai and Will H. Corral
Far from opening up the world, the strict feminist lens tends to close off the world, focusing it in a very narrow way that fails to capture anything remotely looking like the real world we live in.
This shouldn't be all that surprising because feminism at the end of the day is a political ideology and suffers exactly what ALL political ideologies suffer from, you're ultimately choosing to buy into a certain set of beliefs, and it ends up functioning like religious dogma (depending on the important varient of the individual of course).
Now with that said once in awhile it can be useful to have some "feminist" tools for analyzing an art work, but it usually makes more sense for that to be like a ten minute footnote to the larger conversation, and then move on to the real meat and potatoes of a literary work, the exception being if the work is feminist in outlook (say something by Joanna Russ) or deals with directly with gender (say stuff by Ursula LeGuin).
Unfortunately, there really are grad students and some professors who can only repeat the tired old litany of heteronomativity, racism, classism, imperialism, sexism, misogyny. That's all they seem to get out of a literary work or a film, and you can't help wondering why they are even here reading and studying this stuff if that's how they feel.
Eric,
I'm not Jeff and can't speak for Jeff of course. If one is rigid - as the Edelman/Hitchcock example shows, it really doesn't matter what one's ideology is. In my world, however, feminist insights are important.
My partner is Black. I am White. I could look at everything around me as tied to Racism. On the other hand ignoring racism would limit my worlds greatly.
There is a huge difference between using insights we can from learning and being ideologically rigid.
Thanks!
Oh, I don't disagree that feminist insights can be important sometimes. There is no denying that there is plenty of sexism and misogyny in this world, but that's not ALL that is happening in this world either, nor do I necessarily agree that one must believe we live in a patriarchal society to come to the conclusion that there is a lot of sexism and misogyny in this world and that we should work to reduce it significantly (I won't say end because I question whether you can ever truly end these things forever and ever). There is a thousand and one different ways one can philosophically underpin suffering and explain why it occurs and happens.
I also agree that the problem adheres more in the nature of ideology rather than feminism per say.
However, from my experience too many people who go by the title "feminist" end up ideologically rigid, in my opinion. To be extremely reductive about the ideology, for the most part the title of a feminist requires you to presuppose that patriarchy (still) exists and defines our gender roles and identity and equality has not been achieved.
Meanwhile you can come to many of the same conclusions for action and what one should do ethically about domestic violence, rape, sexism, unequal pay, etc. and think the philosophical conclusions and underpinnings of feminist ideology are totally wrong and bogus, find the anti-male diatribes many feminists engage in extremely misandrist and offensive, and not to mention finding such explanations and world-views to be extremely limiting.
So Geo I suspect there's plenty we agree upon. Though, I suspect there is plenty we disagree on as well. I've see first hand what the type of thinking Bell Hooks wants has led to in academia.
I tend to be politically eclectic myself with a slight leaning towards libertarian type philosophies, but not dogmatically or ideologically so. I think one can learn something from all ideologies, while being extremely suspicious of ideology in any form it takes. That we definitely agree on.
"I had a conversation with a 5-year old daughter of a friend, who wanted to show me her 'princess' shoes. I told her they were nice, but that I didn't really like princesses. "Why not?" she asked. "They're kind of boring." She looked at me like I was crazy, and I simply said: It's ok for you to like princesses, but not everybody likes princesses. Again, I don't kid myself about countering the massive tide-of-princess-iness that this girl has been inundated with since the time she could consume media--but sometimes one little voice sticks in one's head. So you never know."
I read this and thought to myself: you need to stop taking your ideology as a "feminist man" so seriously. The fact that you brought a political-gender studies- deconstructionist agenda into a simple encounter with a 5 year old is troubling. You ought to allow for the fact that your worst nightmare - her growing up as a clueless participant in a "traditional" gender role - might actually yield some happiness for her. It does happen - not every woman is miserable.
This is one of the reasons I have no interest in being any kind of "feminist" - I have no interest in self-policing my casual interactions with people to ensure I'm always following the party line.
I am going to take you seriously, Jeff, when you say you wouldn't mind engaging in some disagreement.
Thanks! I appreciate that. And I also appreciate your thoughtful comments.
I've seen you intimate -- also I think I've seen this possibly on Roy's No Cookie blog, and I think on Thinking Girl's blog as well (when she was posting) -- that feminism leads to good critical thinking. That you're not really a good critical thinker unless you're a feminist or you come to the same conclusions.
I'm not saying you claimed that explicitly, but I think you all hint at it. Hmmm. I suppose in one way I do think this--though in only one particular way, the way in which one thinks that one's conclusions are good conclusions, and as such thinks that others who think things through will come to the same or similar conclusions, given all evidence and a bit of time.
But to expound on this idea a bit, I do have some trouble with 'critical thinking' as somehow a stamp of approval that is placed on a line of thought--critical thinking in technical senses can often leave out important ideas. One extreme example of this is Whitehead and Russell's attempt at formalizing predicate logic: Even if Russell had thought that he got it all right (there's evidence that he didn't think so), he still wrote books in plain English to try to convey ideas--presumably these books contained something that a logic proof wouldn't. So, while I think clear thinking is important, and I think we all ought to watch out for the common bugbears involved with thinking through ideas, I also don't give a whole lot of weight to an idea which is put forth as 'critical thought' if it isn't also persuasive, for instance.
That said, I don't think feminism (or any -ism) has a stranglehold on good thinking.
"No offense, but I don't really see feminist thinking or theory as offering vast eye-opening riches in interpreting the world, pop culture, or art in general.
No offense taken. I look around, and from what I see, there are riches to be had. That you don't see them may just mean that we see things differently, for now...
It sounds like you have some objections to ideology in general, and to post-modern feminism in particular. I can empathize. My introduction to po-mo thinking was reading Derrida, so when you point out the haranguing of small points when the 'main' text is left to the side, I know what you're talking about, and to that extent, I totally agree. Of course, I'd want to argue that thinking there is a meat-and-potatoes context when reading a book is also buying into an ideology--that a book means what it's author intended and no more, etc.
While I think various feminisms are rich in diversity of conceptual frameworks, I don't conceive of the feminist lens as the only worthwhile lens. I also see the world through the lens of, for instance, atheism. And Marxism. And Pragmatic Philosophy. And, for a while, I saw the world more through the lens of (this may surprise you) libertarianism. I think there are insights to be drawn from all of these, and more.
That said, I choose to identify as a feminist...and that is sometimes an intellectual struggle for me, because I'm not, generally, a joiner. But I see enough right about some flavors of feminism, and enough wrong in the world that I think feminism 'understands', that it makes it worth it to me to take on the label, to join (if on the margins as a male feminist).
Those are some thoughts on your comments...I could write all day about some of what you've said, because, in part, I don't disagree that much with you--and the ways in which we might disagree may be important yet subtle. But alas, time is not infinite.
Thanks again for the thoughtful comments.
I read this and thought to myself: you need to stop taking your ideology as a "feminist man" so seriously. The fact that you brought a political-gender studies- deconstructionist agenda into a simple encounter with a 5 year old is troubling. You ought to allow for the fact that your worst nightmare - her growing up as a clueless participant in a "traditional" gender role - might actually yield some happiness for her. It does happen - not every woman is miserable.--Sweating TF
I was offering up another perspective to my young friend, one that she's not likely to get very often. I was doing so not because I am toeing some party line, but because I think it's important that kids understand that not all people value princesses (or Spidermen, for that matter). Some do, some don't. She can, of course, find lots of happiness in playing princess. But if she is taught that she can only find happiness by playing princess, which is the default if nobody even offers up alternatives, she's in for a lot of sadness in her life. It's one thing to push something on a kid--it's another to offer up alternatives, especially if she's not likely to be offered up the alternatives very often.
She's has plenty of people (and the power of billion-dollar corporations like Disney) telling her that becoming a princess is the end-all be-all, and probably only a few who don't tell her this (though her parents try to give her some of this insight as well, they also buy her princess stuff). What's wrong with adding another perspective to her world-view? Of course, next time I may just put forth that she may want to check into Xena, Warrior Princess, for a different perspective.
I'm a little taken-aback by the vehemence of your reaction, STF. Does offering up alternative perspectives really equate with bringing my 'agenda' to bear on my friend's kid?
Although, your reaction does make me think that I'm right in assuming that these simple little interactions may have more lasting effects than a lot of us think. It seems to have had an effect on you.
Geo--
I think you summed up the idea of using various conceptual tools at various times very well. Thanks!
Jeff,
I didn't think my reaction was all that vehement - I just pointed out that this was something I have no interest in doing.
There is certainly nothing wrong with offering up additional perspectives and alternatives. But I think your view of her situation is too extreme. That being a princess is the "be all and end all" according to a billion dollar corporation. That she's just a helpless cork in the ocean. Like most people, she'll grow up and reject the roles and stereotypes that don't work for her, and will enthusiastically adopt those that do.
The idea of a princess has a deep history, one that is far older than Disney. And it has such a history because it resonates with some girls and woman at certain ages. Disney is just using a pre-existing archetype to market their products, and they are successful because they go with the grain of human nature, and don't attempt to fight it. In fact, I'll wager that Disney, through focus groups, and the measurement of past marketing efforts, probably has a more accurate and more nuanced view of the psychological orientation of most 5 year old girls then most academic feminists. When Disney gets it wrong - and sometimes they do, they lose money. Disney doesn't have tenure.
Sure - go ahead and offer other perspectives. Just be aware that your view will be of little consequence as compared with other little girls she plays with. And they'll likely reinforce most of the stereotypes.
No offense taken. I look around, and from what I see, there are riches to be had. That you don't see them may just mean that we see things differently, for now...
What an ominous way to end that paragraph. You waiting for me to see the error of my ways and have an epiphany? :P
I think it's important to always be listening to new arguments or rethinking old ones given new evidence or new life experiences, which has caused me to change my positions on various political issues many times (hence the none dogmatic part of being politically eclectic).
It sounds like you have some objections to ideology in general, and to post-modern feminism in particular.
Yeah, I am more concerned with the nature of ideology and how it causes us to read or see the world in specific or even blinding ways.
Of course, I'd want to argue that thinking there is a meat-and-potatoes context when reading a book is also buying into an ideology--that a book means what it's author intended and no more, etc.
Oh, I agree. I firmly see myself in the Reader Response camp with some slight modification. I recognize there are many different interpretations one can make while reading a single work; heck, sometimes I'l even make multiple interpretations of a single work or scene or character myself before ever engaging in discussion with anyone else. I am not saying there is only ONE correct way to read a book. Though, I would point out I also think we shouldn't throw out the helpful concept of author intentionality either, which is the mistake a lot of people make going to the other extreme.
I'm not sure I'd call that a full-fledged ideology, but rather a belief. And as I pointed out my use of it is more complex than the New Criticism version you defined.
I realize there is this assumption (falsely in my opinion) that "traditional literary criticism" is a politically conservative way of doing criticism that bolsters or protects or has an investment in the status quo. I think that is what you were gesturing at in your response. There is a wonderful essay titled "Silence is Consent, Or Curse Ye Meroz!" by Richard Levin from the afforementioned anthology Theory's Empire Ed. Daphne Patai and Will H. Corral, which challenges this idea that not focusing on politics, especially progressive politics in literature, is itself an ideology, especially a conservative one, and to a certain extent he also challenges the "silence equals consent argument" that many progressives like to use, which I think is also a fairly weak argument. You should check it out if you can afford it or can find it in your local library!
While I think various feminisms are rich in diversity of conceptual frameworks, I don't conceive of the feminist lens as the only worthwhile lens. I also see the world through the lens of, for instance, atheism. And Marxism. And Pragmatic Philosophy.
See, I sometimes think the "lens" is the problem itself. I am cautious about adopting lenses that produce rigorous conceptual models; I would prefer to gain some insights into the world from various philosophies and political movements and literatures and ideas and worldviews and religions by keeping an open mind. Thus the eclectic part, I grab bits and piece from all over the place and rethink things. Now, of course, that's what works for me at this point in my life.
I admit a lot of this is also very intellectual/academic for me. I'd rather understand and be able to teach/explain/discuss/lecture rather than necessarily agree with/internalize a particular viewpoint.
My problem with framing it as a "lens" is that it implies your applying them a priori to reading something or looking at something or watching something. I find this problematic because it then prevents you from developing other possible lens, of opening other possible world-views, or ways of looking at the world or experiencing the world gained from those works.
I personally think instead of trying to approach a new work whether it be philosophy, literature, art, sculpture, a quilt, a movie, statistics, sociology, biology, etc. with a particular lens in place or lenses it is better to try to take the work on its own terms, which is not exactly the same as trying to figure out the author's intentions or assuming there is only one way to read the work. But I like to read things and keep an open mind of what I might discover or learn.
Not to say you don't do this or it is impossible to also see other things happening with a lens (obviously all that reading has developed some sort of world-view for me and has therefore created certain lens, however breakable and malleable I consider them to be), but I think it becomes a lot more difficult if one puts up too many thick-layered lenses that end up coloring the experience. They key word for me is malleability.
And, for a while, I saw the world more through the lens of (this may surprise you) libertarianism.
No, I remember that from the last time we had a discussion about women's fear in the dark of men on the street and libertarian philosophy/ideology. It actually gave me a lot to think about the last time.
Hmmm, I think there is a running theme in this response that reflects some of my own world-view in-between the lines.
What an ominous way to end that paragraph. You waiting for me to see the error of my ways and have an epiphany? :P --Eric
Heh. I was referring to the fact that we have, in the past, seemed to learn from each other.
I started responding to your interesting points, and it became post-like, so I'll post something soon in response. Thanks for the great input.
Post a Comment