The Death of the Lover.
I just saw a production of Miss Saigon for stage, and I am trying to work through my reactions to it. The first act played as an ordinary “waiting for your prince” drama, except with some racist/anti-communist overtones as well. The second act seemed to problematize the first; it played like a Greek tragedy in that all of the characters seemed less like racist/gendered stereotypes, and more like ordinary people who were trying to do the best they could with the information they had, in a situation that could not add up to a happy ending. In the end, I appreciated the efforts to problematize some of the patriotism evident in the first act and some of the gender stereotyping (even if some of the racism wasn’t really dealt with; I seem to remember something in my sociology text about Vietnamese Canadians protesting the way they were portrayed in a Toronto production of Miss Saigon, so I don’t think I’m too off the mark when I suggest that that the racialized characters were stereotyped).
I alternatively identified with and despised the heroine; she falls in love with an American GI after inspiring him with her innocence after he had resisted being corrupted by the seedy underbelly of Saigon. He promises to return to her so they can consummate their love and live happily ever after, even proving his masculinity in the face of her racialized betrothed. She waits for him; after singing many songs about how he (and another man/boy, their son) is all she lives for, she bravely (?) speaks of her hopes for her future, and the redemptive power of their love. She waits for him; at one point I thought to myself, “let me know how that works out for you,” anticipating that she would somehow sacrifice her life while hanging on to something that would never materialize. In the end, it never does because her man convinces himself that he can start over with his American wife (whom I also identified with, as the “other woman”). Our heroine sacrifices herself through suicide; in the closing act the main characters hang their heads as Scylla and Charybdis look on. Who didn’t see either outcome occurring?
Of course, this is a (fairly straightforward and underdeveloped) critical/feminist analysis of the play. What most struck me was how almost all of the women in the play were either sex objects or victims; the racialized women (and men) simply had even fewer choices than say, the American GI and his wife. While some would say “that’s what happens in a war,” I would say, yeah, it does – but why does this have to happen at all, and how does the play perpetuate the idea that This Is The Way Things Have To Be? What bothered me the most was the heroines’ insistence that “love would conquer all,” although I am not certain if the play ultimately endorses or questions ideologies of Romantic Love. Although most of the play seemed to be trumpeting the redemptive powers of love (and American idealism) in the face of corruption, the death scene in the end could be read as a confirmation of this ideology (she dies, but their love lives on in the child that is saved) or refutes it (look what happens when you believe in this sort of thing). Similarly, by portraying an American GI as a hero (and the betrothed as easily corruptible and power hungry) the play seems to be lamenting the “tragedies of war” without really criticizing the Americans’ role in constructing this tragedy in the first place (while the Vietnamese, on the other hand, are either corrupted or “pure” and in need of the American’s “salvation,” which is where the charges of “racism” apply. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that I think the Vietnamese were entirely in the right either; some “leftist” interpretations of the Vietnam war – as one of Imperialistic aggression – are problematic/overly-simplistic as well). On the other hand, even our hero makes calculations that the play positions as selfish (while the married couple want to blindly start over in the US with Kim’s child, the “chorus” – the GI’s friend – warns them that they are being selfish by choosing to forget about our heroine Kim).
In the end, although our hero does fall victim to hubris, yet I am not sure that admitting to the individual soldiers’ moral failings adds up to a criticism of the US’s role in the war in and of itself; the fact that Vietnamese are never really portrayed as anything but helpless or corrupt puts doubt into my mind that this is a critique of “the US’s involvement in the Vietnam war” or just “the tragedy of war” itself. My gut feeling, and the bit of analysis I have done, leads me towards the latter conclusion. I suggest that our hero’s moral failings make him a hero in the sense that Achilles was – his “humanity” is there to make him seem like someone to whom the audience can relate, but it is not a vulnerability that calls the American’s involvement in the war itself into question.
I kind of want to go back to my reaction to the play’s endorsement/possible questioning of ideologies of romantic love; although I was critical of portrayals of communists as mindless and racialized “others” as victims, my reaction to the idea of “love” in the play was definitely coming from a more emotional place. I initially dismissed the relationship between the American GI, Chris, and the heroine, Kim; in one night of passion they fall in love and dream of building a life together. Oh please, I thought to myself; although I could appreciate how one could fall in love in an obviously desperate situation, I was already thinking that their long-term prospects were pretty grim. To compare possible outcomes, I submit the film Hedwig and the Angry Inch. For those who don’t know the film, our hero from the wrong side of the Berlin Wall is a beautiful young boy with an abusive mother and few prospects in life. He falls in love/lust with an American GI, and goes through a sketchy sex-change operation so he can marry the GI and leave Berlin. Hedwig ultimately finds her/himself abandoned in a trailer park, confused about her gender identity, and betrayed by the American dream when she finally arrives in the USA (no doubt, this film is playing with the ways in which gendered relationships are portrayed within more “conventional” films about war; this more cynical/critical reading of the American imperialistic wars and relationships between the genders definitely suits my sensibilities a bit more). However, when I realized that my reaction to Miss Saigon had something to do with my own experiences with Romantic Love and was not entirely made on intellectual grounds, I decided that I would consider the possibility that our heroine’s death could be read in a few ways (although there is definitely a reading I favor).
I’ll discuss the emotional reaction soon; this reaction notwithstanding, my final verdict on “gender in Miss Saigon” is similar to that of my (underdeveloped) analysis of race. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that a film that generally portrays women as helpless victims who need to be saved by American men and only find a sense of agency when they align themselves with men is *actually* trading on gendered stereotypes and re-enforcing ideologies of romantic love instead of problematizing these. I do believe that the original play was made a number of years ago, before it was so common to portray gender roles and relationships in an “ironic” or cynical fashion (Hedwig does this brilliantly, IMHO); for that reason, my “straightforward” reading seems to be the more plausible one. Considering the other possibility (as I said I would), it seems to be a bit of a stretch to imagine that the death scene in the end is suggesting that women shouldn’t wait for their hero, when most of the dramatic and emotional content of the movie comes from her longing, not any sense of agency she might have. It would be a different movie, if say, she tried to start over in the same way as her man did (granted, I am not entirely sure what her options would have been in that situation; maybe waiting for him was her best choice, and my underdeveloped feminist analysis should therefore rest in peace as well). It is difficult for me to imagine that this play isn’t saying anything about love that hasn’t been repeated again and again within Western culture – and like Romeo and Juliet, they do find themselves together in the end, if briefly.
My final verdict? This is a play about the power of love between a man and a woman in the “modern” setting of the Vietnam war (making a critical analysis based on race possible); yet it doesn’t seem to be offering any ideas about love that we haven’t seen before. It suggests that Love has the power to “redeem” the corrupt or emotionally damaged, yet in order for it to persist someone (usually a woman) must sacrifice herself for the other (others have noticed that this “self-sacrificial love” is a very “Christian” form of love as well; I will not get into that reading in much detail, simply because I don’t feel like I have the background in religion to make a compelling case for interpretation as well. I bring that reading up because it is definitely related to the gendered analysis above inasmuch as some readings of the Bible can be said to be responsible for some of the ideas we have about gender now).
For the time being I am going to hold off on getting to involved in analyzing the “emotional” aspect of my response to this play. However, it is probably obvious to anyone who knows me that my cynicism towards Romantic Love is not entirely unrelated to my own experiences believing in the self-defeating ideas the heroine of Miss Saigon held. In short, I believed that I also sacrificed a bit of my life as I held on to something that would never materialize. I appreciate the play for being honest about what that belief will do to a person of any gender, even if it doesn’t suggest any alternatives (ie, holding onto the idea that someone is going to come along and save you is probably going to end up in a wasted life – metaphorically or literally – and a broken heart). Quite honestly, I really liked the ending (and the entire second act) because although it wasn’t obviously critical, ironic, or cynical, it did seem to call the purpose of the war and at least some of the American’s idealism/hubris into question (even while trading on racialized and gendered stereotypes). Quite honestly, while death is a Romantic ending as well (and it is Romanticism I doubt), I preferred that to another possible ending (the GI and the heroine move to the USA and live happily ever after). Quite honestly, I would have thrown up or laughed uproariously if that had happened, and no one would have wanted that.
To a certain extent, I don’t expect to see a love story that plays into my sensibilities and thinking on Love because I think most people want to believe in True Love, even if I’ve rejected the possibility. A story that casts doubt on the possibility of “True Love” would be a story so depressing I wouldn’t even want to watch it (at the end of the day, even I want to think I experienced it, even if it was painful and ended terribly). I write about these issues because I am time and again reminded that I have become deeply cynical, and even I am surprised by this. I am starting to think that my own experiences with Romantic Love changed me in ways that probably aren’t reversible, and that’s a bit of a scary thought. At the same time, as a Canadian woman who is not trapped in a war, I realize that I have the opportunity to analyze my past and make choices. I don’t have to re-live victim scripts; although I am severely emotionally fucked-up, I hesitate to claim that I am a “victim” per se (if only because I realize that I am fucked up; a realization that lends itself to the possibility of agency, even if I have no idea about what to do about it yet. That’s probably why I’m looking for answers in plays and movies, come to think of it). At any rate, it is ironic (or inevitable?) that the ideology of Romantic Love has taken yet another female victim (even an unwilling one), and I realize that experience and my subsequent rejection of this ideology informs how I see and act in the world (including how I analyze media). If I were a modernist thinker, I would say something about this experience indicating the existence of some sort of paradigm, but I am not arrogant enough to think that my situation has much to do with that of actual Vietnamese women. Of course, I may have a bit in common with the “Vietnamese Woman” as constructed through hegemonic discourses (but only the “woman” part, not the “Vietnamese” piece); to the extent that women are constructed through these discourses as passive victims, I could be occasioning some sort of “survivor identity” in a misguided, artificial act of resistance (I’m sure there is a Lacanian analyst out there who has come up with one that applies to me).
At this point, I should be applying my critical thinking skills and my tenuous grasp on post-modern thought to my assignments. For anyone who might be hoping for it, this means I am not going to do any more probing into my emotional state (at least, I won’t be writing anything I care to make public). Part of my “act of resistance” (or, alternatively, evidence of complicity with a victim script) is a disavowal of anything approaching vulnerability. What I’ve said here is about as good as it gets in terms of any “willingness to be human.” I could write something about an unwillingness to be vulnerable indicating an internalized sense of misogynist self-loathing; alternatively, I also suspect that my entire analysis and the feminist perspective it articulates may be an example of slave morality, in the Nietzschean sense. However, those are pieces for another time.
Ch. 11 – Education
Social institution: Longstanding pattern of social relationships, which is perpatuated and maintained because we have some sort of common agreement within socity about what is important and how best to achieve these goals; ie, education functions to fulfill certain goals that hold society together.
Education – formal learning that takes place in settings that are primarily designed to deliver courses, learning activities, or credentials in an organized way (ie, there is a ciriculum, streaming of courses, enterance requrements, etc).
Informal learning – lifelong learning that takes place outside of formal education systems; occurs when people take it upon themselves to learn about certain phenomena/proceses.
Socialization – includes formal learning (schooling/education) and informal learning; people learn these things in order to understand and negotiate the social world.
1. a) How has formal education (schooling) become a central social institution (describe changes and continuities in formal ed. in Can.)?
-How has education in Canada changed over the years?
Then:
-Most Canadians spend some amount of time in formal schooling, which wasn’t always the case: Schooling was more sporadic and short-term in the nineteeth century – kids entered at later age and left earlier (by early teens).
-Poor economic conditions contributed to transence and poverty; these factors in turn affected attendance: In the nineteen century, parents were more likely to send kids to school when times were good. When crops were failing and parents needed help at home, they’d pull kids out of school.
-Regional differences in access to education: Some communities didn’t have schools or qualified teachers
Now:
-Changes:
-Schools are now larger and more sophisticated architecturally and technologically
-Students exposed to a greater diversity of teachers, subject matter, work projects
-Students display and experience a greater degree of cultural and personal variation
-Increased access to learning opportunities
-Continutities:
-Educational activities are still very regimented, superivised, and distinct from other social activities
-Regional variation in educational quality and opportunities still exists, as well as differential access depending on what social category you fall into
-What are the dimensions/features of educational growth in Canada?
-Institutionalized fairly recently: Formal educational systems have become increasingly common in Canada – ie, it’s an institution now
->Expanded in Canada after WW2 – in the early ’50s over half of the Canadian pop didn’t have more than a gr. 9 ed; now we’re one of the most hightly ed. pops in the world (nearly half of Canadians now have post-secondary)
->Most of this growth happened in 60s-70s, co-inciding with baby boom
-Factors promoting growth of formal ed/instutitionalization of ed:
->Education increasingly available in Canada
->More common for members of the Canadian public to attain some type of credentials as a result.
->Immigrants allowed into Canada more likley to have high credentials
Economic aspect:
-Formal education wasn’t seen as being so significant, nor were opportunities as widely available because most occupations didn’t require formal ed in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Now employers are far more likely to seek out credentials when selecting candidates, and credentials are now requred for some field – hence the growth of post-secondary.
-Function of schools have changed: It wasn’t the credentials that were necessarily important; ppl relied on schools to help kids develop skills and knowledge, but schools also served to socialize and look after kids.
-Focus on teachers as good role models, discipine, rote learning
-Belief in the importance of formal education: Instutionalization/growth patterns are connected to public opinion – Canadians generally believe that formal ecducation contibutes to individual personal growth and promotes social need for knowlege, innovation, credentials.
-Transition from a private to a public good:
-In 19th and Early 20th Centuries, education was delivered informally, through parents, businesses and churches – now the state is responsible for ed in Canada
-Difference between formal ed and other “sites” of learning:
-More flexible and comprehensive cirruiculum than that offered by parents, churches, and businesses
-Centralization/consolidation of smaller schools into larger schools/districts
-1900’s – schools starting to be consolidated into larger schools and school districts
-1940s-60s – smaller schools/districts increasingly amalgamated into larger ones
1990s – number of school boards in each province continues to decline; decreasing numbers of public schools (ed is increasingly available in other forms; increased enrollment is being “absorbed” within larger schools and by over-crowding smaller ones)
-life-cycle changes – we spend more of our lives in the institution:
-People start school earlier and attend school for longer – more common to continue into post-secondary and re-enter schooling later in life
-Post-secondary is more common; content oriented towards uni credit instead of vocational training:
-Used to focus on specific vocational training; community colleges in particular made university credit courses more accessible
-What are challenges associated with this growth?
-Public ed required taxation, which some resisted
-Regional variation in the availablity of qualified teachers and quality of education (increased specialization wrt to teacher’s credentials and curriculum in urban areas)
-Demand for schooling sometimes exceeded schools’ capacity to provided teachers, textbooks, facilities
-Disputes between school boards and community members re: curriculum
b) Why has formal ed become a central social institution (explain changes in formal ed. in Can.)?
-Demographic changes, particularly during the 1960’s – 1970’s, ie, the baby boom – increased number of school aged children after ww2
-Changing views re: the purpose of education: No longer seen as a primarily a “moral/social training” ground and a place to put kids when parents were busy; Now education is seen as an activity that promotes the personal as well as the social good (ie, social needs for knowledge, innovation, credentials)
-Economic changes - transition from an economy based on primary and secondary industries to a “knowlege economy.” Credentials are required to obtain job opportunities, even in fields that didn’t always require these (the class exampe of the aluminum manufacturing plant that came to require a college diploma even though that wasn’t required for the job comes to mind – too many applicants, which is linked to demographic changes).
-A successful claims-making process: Public schools played the socialization card, convincing the public that formal ed was the best way to promote individual and social goals
-Consolidation/amalgamation facilitated by proliferation of transportation networks, as well as financial/administrative difficulties in smaller schools/districts
-Availablity/content of post-secondary caused by labour market changes, demographic changes, expansion of community college system
2) What are forms of lifelong learning beyond formal education (ie, how do ppl learn informally)?
lifelong learning – Occurs when people engage in education (formally or informally) beyond limits mandated by the state (you usually “have to” attend b/t ages 5-18 in most provinces, but many ppl go for longer than that)
New Economy/knowlege-based economy -
-Characterized by an increasing reliance on IT and scientific advancements in all spheres of social life.
->Learning activities are relevant throughout all stages of the lifecycle, in whether in your career (through formal ed and on the job training, testing products/services, processing info, building individual’s capacity to manage/process/integrate info) and personal life (significance of informal learning)
->Capacity to learn, integrate, apply, and transfer knowlege is central to the personal and professional oppotunities available to a person.
Informal learning – Occurs when groups/individuals take it upon themselves to acquire new knowlege that they can apply to work, personal, or community circumstances – ie, teaching yourself how to play poker
->More common among highly literate segments of the population
->More common among those with formal ed
globalization - Flow of goods/services, media, info, labour b/g countries around the globe; controlled and co-ordinated by private-sector interests unconstrained by state regulations
->formal ed and lifelong learning are associated with globalization; these factors are associated with economic development, which is an objective championed by the private interests that run the globalization show (seen in modernization/development projects).
->formal ed is associated with a high SofL; where formal ed is limited incidence of disease, unemployment, crime, etc increases
3) What are theoretical perspectives socis use to explain educational systems, practices, outcomes?
Conflict: How does education perpetuate power differentials and inequalities within society?
Structural Functionalism: Focuses on education’s contribution to social needs and economic goals.
Symbolic Interactionism/microsociology: How do interactions between those who participate in educational processes shape/change these processes?
Feminist: How is education gendered? Can talk about differential access, how formal education perpetuates “masucline” values such as competition, how men and women have different experiences within classrooms.
4) What is the relationship between education and social inequality?
There is a strong relationship between SES and educatinal attainment. Formal education is a significant determinant of the social and economic opportunities available to certain groups, depending on gender, race/eth, and class. It is becoming increasingly important factor in the experiences of members of each group.
5. a) How does the relationship between educational systems and participants shape education (ie, content of ed, what it means to be educated) and educational outcomes?
b) How does the social context in which ed inst. operate shape educational processes and outcomes?
6) What are major educational issues right now? Outline the debates and evaluate merits/weaknesses of each position.
digital divide
Sociology Chapter Nine Review
What do I remember from the last chapter I read in the soci text?
What is “the family”?
Family is a social institution:
-pattern of social relationships
-endures over time
-result from an enduring set of ideas about what is important in society and how best to accomplish these goals
1) How do families vary?
a) Family is defined in various ways (ie, who makes up the family differs)
-ie, Nuclear family, census family, extended family, modified extended family, household
b) Patterns of relationships within the family vary
-ie, monogamy or polygyny (polygamy or polyandry)
c) Legal relationships differ
-ie, arranged vs. free-choice marriage
d) Patterns of Authority and descent vary
-authority: patriarchal or matriarchal/matrifocal
-descent: patrilineal, matrilinal, bilateral
2) How have sociologists conceputalized/explained family patterns?
-Political Ecnonomy approach, structural functionalist, social constructionist/symbolic interactionist, feminist, post-modern
3) What are some issues within Canadian Families?
-Wife abuse, divorce/repartnering, affordable childcare, assisted conception/low fertility, sharing domestic work.
4) What are demographic trends in Canada?
The details on each topic follow.
1) Variations in family life:
What do most definitions of “the family” assume?
-members of a family are related
-they share a dwelling
-”family” is determined by legal obligations members have towards one another, not by bonds of care or services provided to one another
-usually defined by the (hetero)sexual relationship between a couple
What did academics used to assume?
-Families were related by blood/adoption/marriage
-Parents maintained a sexually exlusive relationship with one another
-shared a dwelling/earnings/other resources
-Parents reproduced and raised kids together
-Family members protected one another (see S/F perspective – many of these assumptions are evident here)
a) The Definitions:
nuclear family: Parents and children sharing a dwelling
Census family: Consists of a married couples sharing a dwelling, and co-habiting couples living together for over one year. May or may not have never-married children. Also includes lone-parents with never-married children, and was changed in 2006 to include same-sex couples (and NMC’s).
household: Individuals sharing a dwelling, not necessarily related.
Extended family: Several generations of adult siblings, thier spouses, and kids. They share resources and a dwelling.
Modified extended family: An extended family that lives in close proximity to one another and rely on one another for economic and social support, ie, like extended family but they don’t share a house.
-Most Canadians live in nuclear families, but culture (and related historical experiences, immigrant status, SES, traditions, and religious beliefs) also determines family form – ie, both extended families and mod. EF’s are common among immigrants from the Middle East and South Asia; EF’s are common among First Nations, Southern European immigrants, and some Asians.
-Contrary to what sociologists used to believe (ie, Parsons and Bales) nuclear families have always been more common among North Americans and most Europeans; extended families were not more prevalent prior to industrialization (which contradicts one of the Political Economist’s main assumptions).
b) Patterns of relationships within the family vary
-ie, monogamy or polygyny (polygamy or polyandry)
Polygyny – multiple spouses.
Polygamy (multiple wives) is the most common form of polygyny. It allows many children to be born into one family, which is useful if the family is the main unit of economic production. In societies that use patrilineal descent, this also ensures that resources stay within the father’s line; it is difficult to determine where the wife, children, and associated resources goes if no one knows who the father is (which is a probable occurance within polyandrous unions, ie, if a woman had many husbands).
-Polygamy is assoicated with patriarchy (families are structured to suit men’s interests) and wide age gaps between husbands and wives.
-First wives gain status when he takes other wives – she acts as a supervisor.
Polyandry: a woman has many husbands – they are usually all brothers. This keeps a parcel of land intact (if the men went off and started thier own families with different wives, the land would have to be divided amongst them).
-Polyandry is thus not necessarily associated with matriarchy/matrifocal authority systems.
c) Legal relationships differ, ie different marriage systems:
Arranged:
Assumes: Family status (including potential hiers, solidarity), alliances between families, family’s reputation, resources available to a family, and parental wisdom forms the basis for legal union.
Related terms:
dowry – Price paid BY the bride’s family TO the grooms family.
-So a dowry consists of furnishings, money, servants, land, etc. that come “with” the bride, which allows her to attract a better husband (ie, wealthier, more respected, better family). It also secures alliances between families, and it may help the couple establish thier new household (if it doesn’t become property of the groom’s family).
-Can also provide bride with some material security in case of a difficult/abusive marriage, but this depends on how much control women have over resources in the society.
bride price – Price paid TO the bride’s family FROM the groom’s family.
-So it’s something the groom’s family gives to the bride’s in “exchange” for their daughter (nice and sexist, that). Bride is worth more if she’s pretty and/or comes from a wealthy/respected family.
Common among: Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants
Free choice:
Assumes: Love/sexual attraction between a couple forms the basis of legal obligations.
Related terms/ideas:
Dowry tradition is reflected in wedding reception, honeymoon (I suppose the bride’s family is expected to pay for these things?)
Bride price reflected in ring exchange – he “buys her love,” with gold and diamonds, as it were.
d) Patterns of Authority and descent vary
Systems of authority:
Patriarchal:
Assumes: Men have more power than women. Eldest male is the head of the household, controls resources, and is the “public face” of the family.
Examples: Seen everywhere.
Matriarchal/Matrifocal
Assumes: Women have more power than men.
Related terms: In matrifocal societies, wives/mothers have control over resources, contribute to family income, and a say in important decisions.
Examples: New Guinea – Tchambuli people
Systems of descent:
Patrilinial: Married couple belongs to groom’s family and lives with/near them. Property is passed from elder males to younger males. Kids inherit dad’s last name.
Matrilinal: Married couple belongs to bride’s family and lives with/near them. I assume that property is passed through the mother’s line, and kids can inherit mom’s last name. Sociologists prolly haven’t worked out the specifics because it is doubtful that a “pure” matrilinial descent system exists anywhere (I’d have to double check anthropologicial record to be sure of that though).
Bilocal: Married couple has social obligations towards both bride’s and groom’s families. Couple can live where-ever they want (usually on their own, away from either family), can inherit from both sides, and take either mom’s or dad’s last name (still usually dad’s).
2) Theories that attempt to explain how/why certain families come into being, and what changes family structures:
Political Economy:
Assumes: One’s relationship to the economic cycles and power structures informs how they think (ideas/beliefs) and behave (interpersonal relationships); so family structure is related to economic and political conditions.
Change: Is caused by conflict between groups in society -ie b/t those who control production and make laws, and those who don’t
Thinkers: Marx & Engels
Examples: Nuclear family arose as a result of urbanization/industrialization. Family was changed from a “unit of production” to a “unit of consumption” as it became cheaper to manufacture goods in factories (located in cities) than within the family unity (on a farm). Patriarchal authority diminished as men moved into factories, and an employer’s requirements (not the patriarch) determined how “family” and “personal” time was structured. The apparent divide between the “public” and “private” spheres (and current gendered division of labour and associated ideologies of masculinity and femininity) was not caused by traits inherent to genders, but only “seemed” natural due to the way work is structured under industrial capitalism.
Structural-functionalist:
Assumes: Societal rules and expecations create various family structures/systems, not economic changes or personal choice.
Change: Doensn’t adequatly explain social change because it assumes that people/groups act in certain ways in order to conform to societal expecations, implying a stagnant society. Difference is framed in terms of deviance, which the larger group attempts to regulate.
Thinkers: Parsons & Bales
Examples: Family functions to socialize children and meet personal needs of family members.
Related terminology:
Institutional approach – the idea that this entity exists as a result of some common agreement on what is good for society and how best to fulfil the social good, and these ideas do not really change over time
heirarchy of generations – the idea that older generations socialize younger generations into socially necessary roles
Instrumental role – husband deals with outside world and provides
Expressive role -Wife supports relationships and nurtures family members
Social Constructionist/Symbolic Interactionist:
Assumes: Niether economic/political conditions nor unconciously-held expecations inform family structure. Instead, we create certain families by interacting with one another AND EXERTING WILL. Ideas we hold about what a family inform family structure; we actively construct our social world as we think about it and interact with others.
Change: occurs when ideas and perceptions change through interaction and reflection
Thinkers: Cooley, Mead, Blumer
Examples: How people’s percetptions and definitions of a situation (ie, a conflict) changes the situation itself
Related terminology:
verbal and non-verbal cues – speech, symbols, body language, etc.
Self – an entity that is capable of subjectivity – can create itself and reflect on the world; and objectivity – can be the object of it’s own thought and that of others
anticipatory socialization – explicit, implicit learning in preparation for a future role
Feminist:
Assumes:
Power dynamics between men and women influence family structure. These play out at a micro and macro level; at the macro level this occurs through a gendered division of work that places women in the home/in caregiver roles.
-Can take a structural approach (ie, the political enonomist’s perpective with a “gendered” lens) or a social constructionist/SI approach (ie, looking at how interpersonal relationships, verbal and non-verbal comms, and meanings are gendered)
Change: Ideas about how social change occurs depends on what side of the “structure/agency debate” your feminist thinker falls.
Examples: Structural feminists might focus on unequal/gendered division of labour within families; interpretive feminists might focus on women’s different moral characteristics or ways of relating/speaking
Related terminology: gendered division of labour, gender
Post-modern:
Assumes: Truth is relative and depends on your social location (ie, gender, race, culture, historical time period)
Change:
Examples:
Related terminology:
3) Issues facing Canadian Families:
Sharing domestic work
wife abuse
assisted conception
affordable childcare
divorce/repartnering
4) Demographic Trends
Who Am I?
In class it was said that writing in and of itself will generate ideas. In an effort to undermine the mutually-reinforcing, lifelong habit of perfectionism and procrastination, I am going to do this reflection assignment right now. This gets it out of the way, and a time deadline (forty minutes) keeps me from agonizing over it.
I had thought that more specific requirements for this assignment would have been on blackboard or the course outline somewhere; these were nowhere to be found. This seems to be par for course in this class; I anticipate it will challenge another deeply-ingrained habit; ie, trying to figure everything out on my own. I am going to assume then, that this assignment is exactly as informal as was indicated in class; if I cannot trust my perceptions to impose a reliable form of order on the world, I hope I can trust my comprehension of what was said in the lecture today.
I haven’t said much about myself in the past few paragraphs, but I have probably given a few things away indirectly. It would be reasonable to assume that I am a very cautious, meticulous, untrusting person from what I’ve written so far; that assumption would be correct. Recent and historical life experiences have revealed the lies in many assumptions of order; as a result, I test the waters in many life situations and have a difficult time trusting any decision deeply enough to commit to it wholeheartedly. This hasn’t worked very well, and I am attempting to develop coping strategies that will, to borrow the phrase used in class, maximize my outcomes in life. Many of these strategies involve re-training my mind; right now these efforts are oriented towards reducing the anxiety that forms the background noise to my consciousness and makes every activity seem like a life-or-death situation. The emotional and intellectual paralysis that results from this hasn’t facilitated success in life, and I would like that to change. This is actually one of the many reasons I am choosing to stay in this class; there may be an intimidating 65-page paper due by the end of it, but I anticipate that the process will help me develop the skills I need to manage perfectionism and procrastination more sucessfully.
So, I am a perfectionist, cautious, and anxious. Perhaps I could say something that would make me seem somewhat endearing as well. It was suggested in class that many of us have extraordinary talents and exciting life experiences. I suppose I could say that I do; I have another life outside of academia in which I perform in burlesque troupes, dance, and model. Over the past summer, I learned how to teach yoga; I feel extremely fortunate to be paid to do something I love after working the gamut of part-time student jobs for well over a decade. After a ten-year hiatus, I am teaching myself how to play music again. I used to consider myself a fairly creative person, and over the years I have let many of those talents atrophy. My only outlet now is writing; because that is associated with academia I have to fight a great deal of emotional baggage when I write. Since I have fewer expectations of other forms of expression, these activities help me put that “inside world” out there more effectively than writing does sometimes.
To define myself by my work, I am taking a major in Women’s Studies and a minor in Political Science. This is a worthwhile pursuit in my mind because I have always been interested social justice issues; I am interested in learning about the ways in which social structures and power dynamics within society shape our identities, the opportunities we have in life, and how we experience, understand, and explain the world. Consequently, this is also why I am interested in social psychology. It might not fit “exactly” but it will (hopefully) explain the relationship between who we are on an internal level and what exists (or what we think exists) in the external world. I am particularly interested using some of my journaling in this class as a forum for an interdisciplinary conversation. I know some of the schools of thought I have encountered through Women’s Studies and in courses on the sociology of gender tend to take issue with some of the perspectives that inform mainstream psychology (particularly evolutionary psychology). I am interested in learning about the “other side,” if only to enrich my understanding of my own discipline’s perspective (and even to modify or change my ideas in light of new information).I found some of the comments made in the first lecture somewhat amusing, simply because I haven’t made it through to latter portions of my undergraduate degree under the delusion that I am an individual. In many ways, I am likely typical of someone my gender and socio-economic class background. However, recent life experiences have inspired me to look a bit deeper into “who I am” to draw out which aspects of my identity and behaviors are simply reactions to my social environment, how much of that is really “me,” or if it is even possible to sort out the difference between the two. I am willing to take on the challenges of this course (65-page paper and all) in order to find out a bit more what “human agency” really means.
If you want to have a bit more fun over the holidays, the folks at Fetlife can help you out with that:
http://fetlife.com/sit_on_santas_lap
Thanks to aenux for letting me know about this. Fetlife poses an even greater threat to my productivity than Facebook, so I’ve been avoiding that place during my travels through internet-land as of late. The items I chose would be a welcome addition to my collection, so I’m crossing my fingers for this one. 
I need to write something about sexuality.
In order to make this evenings worth of reading, thinking, and scribbling on a chalkboard worthwhile, I am going to make myself write something on the subject before I go home to pass out in my bed. In this forum, dropped threads, incomplete theorizing, grammatical mistakes, and any other intellectual or functional foibles are allowed in the name of getting “something” down. Here goes!
I am trying to unpack a qauntitative study in which the researchers test the following hypotheses:
women’s feminist identification —(+)—>egalitarian role expectations in committed relationships
women’s feminist identification —(+)—>sexual assertiveness (ie, safer
sex practices, initiation, etc.
They also tested for a spurious relationship between egalitarian role expectations and sexual assertiveness; although the two variables are associated, they postulate that feminist identification causes both.
They find that non-feminist women scored low on egalitarian role expectations as well as sexual assertiveness, which isn’t terribly surprising. They also found that feminist women tended to endorse egalitarian role expectations, yet they weren’t necessarily sexually assertive (scores were positive, but not significant). Although the researchers specuated on the harm that non-feminist women may be facing in thier intimate and sexual relationships, I found the results among feminist women more intriguing. Why aren’t feminist women taking their egalitarian role expectations (which are indicative of thier ideological committments) to the bedroom? Why the disconnect between theory and practice?
A student in the class dealt with this disconnect by criticizing the validity of the theoretical model. She claimed that the model assumes one takes on a feminist identity rather unproblematically once they’ve transcended a “revelation” stage; however, women tend to negotiate this identity continuously. Their progressive model tries to account for the complexity of women’s relationship to a feminist identity by accounting for variations in women’s ideological committment over time; previous studies also showed that women can display attributes of all levels of “feminist” identification at once, and the measures derived from this model account for this as well. However, the model cannot account for some of the other difficulties that might prevent a feminist woman from endorsing egalitarian relationships without explaining this in terms of her committment level; since a model simplifies “reality” by definition, other factors that may inform a women’s egalitarian expecations are excluded. So the apparent disconnect between theory and practice might have something to do with the inadeqacy of these measures; it is possible that a woman may consider herself to be a committed feminist, yet she may be having difficulties enacting that in daily life. Since it was developed in 1985, it may more adequately reflect the ways in which the “second wave” generation of feminists came into conciousness (in 10,000 Roses, they often described feminism as a revelation, and became variously committed to the cause, as this model suggests); yet during the third wave, what it means and looks like to be a “feminist” isn’t as straightforward or unproblematic as this model implies.
That critique (and the model) assumes that coming to conciousness and acting upon one’s convictions was more straightforward than it probably was even during that time. However, questioning the model itself was an interesting approach, and was kind of criticising myself for taking it at face value.
I do think that dropping the ball on the theory/practice disconnect was an oversight. While that was due to theoretical reasons, I still think that the model is credible enough to merit a discussion of that particular finding. In the discussion, the researchers were worried about the negative concequences non-feminist women might face, particularly if they are ending up in unhappy non-egalitarian relationships and/or are being sexually exploited. However, the lack of action among feminists (whatever their “degree” of committment) is a concern as well, and my ideas on why that might be will be the topic of the rest if this post. In my mind, feminists may not be sexually assertive because doing so poses thorny ethical, political, and personal problems for a feminist woman. They need to continuously interrogate thier own desires and engage with it in a world that does not automatically understand that they are operating from a feminst standpoint (ie, desire can be co-opted within relationships to the detriment of the parties involvd, and the feminist cause in general). Feminist women may be reluctant to engage in “sexually assertive” because they are still trying to sort through thier identities within a social world that does provide any clear scripts for “sexually liberated” women, and continues to regulate women’s sexuality.
1) Although some feminist values have become norms, there are still no viable scripts for women who want take ownership of thier sexuality without being exploited/exploitative (the “fuck like a man” script) or idealizing relational/loving sex (I’ll call this the “feminine feminist” script).
-I can explore this further using Kimmel -he explores that “fuck like a man” script
-There is the assumption in “that anti-porn movie” that “feminist” sex must be loving. What place is there in that world for women who don’t necessarily want to mother or love every person with whom they share a bed? Why do we need the idea of “love” to protect us from our desires?
-Both options re-inscribe gendered norms, and that just isn’t enough for me.
2) Feminist women may not be engaging in “assertive” sex because we still have to contend with the S-Bomb from the rest of the world if we are engaging in any non-normative sexual behavior; we may still be putting the brakes on what we do because we’re concerned about our reputations.
- sub-point about my own desires in the kinky community – I haven’t fully come to terms with that myself, so I don’t want to “out” myself in a place that I appreciate for the opportunities it affords to engage in non-hierarchical styles of relating
3) Spaces that allow for sexual adventurousness are not necessarily feminist, and may be unacceptably anti-feminist.
ie, kinky community again, however, it does provide an avenue in which to learn about and explore desires; discourse of “consent” is preferable to the “casual sex” subculture, even if does not necessarily establish norms that I personally find acceptable
4) Difficult to negotiate feminist principles and desires – ie, am I labouring under false conciousness, or is my involvement in the kinky community politically acceptable as long as I am acting in a self-aware fashion, c0ntinuously negotiating consent (and checking in with myself to see if I am engaging in certain behaviours because I feel like it’s expected, or because I find them pleasurable).
5) The nature of desire – does the “erotic” require a power imbalance, or at least a degree of mystery?
6) Any “solution” likely to be temporary; listening to one’s own moral compass and sense of discomfort is a compromise that can be considered feminist
Each of the points could be used for an eassay in an of themselves, but maybe the decent ones will jump out at me once I post this.
Creating discourse, not debate.
The following is a response to itinerantink’s reflections on the role of a peer mentor. According to her, although teachers and mentors should encourage genunine learning, contemporary educational institutions encourage students to “compete and perform” to promote the school’s reputation and provide workers to industry. She argues that the latter objective constraints teachers, creating classroom settings that discourage intellectual curiosity and produce anxiety and fear of failure among students. This resonates with feminist concerns about “othered” groups who are “silenced” within mainstream discourses and institutions, including academia, so I explored the parallels in a response to her post, which I am reproducing here.
“Random Thoughts” (the blog of Louis Schmier, cited by Itinerantink) reminds me of an article I’ve read in Women’s Studies, called “Negotiating Power Within the Classroom: The Example of Group Work” by Linda Briskin. She claims power dynamics exist within the classroom because teachers and students come into the classroom with particular experiences based on their gender/racial/ethnic/national/sexual identity, and have various levels of physical and intellectual abilities. These characteristics shape how and what they were taught, and how they interact with members of uniquely-identified classmates. Although conventional educational models fail to recognize these differences in order to promote “equality” within the classroom, she argues that this approach re-enforces privilege instead. Although Shmier doesn’t claim that students become different from one another because they are situated within various systems of oppression, he arrives at a similar conclusion: in order to create a classroom in which students feel valued and free to share ideas without fear, they need to be treated as individual human beings, with life histories, personalities, talents, and limitations.
Briskin also develops a couple of strategies to promote a “safe” classroom, advising teachers to “name” power dynamics when they occur. Not only should teachers discourage sexist/racist language and encourage silent students to speak, but the class in general – and the “louder” students in particular – needs to engage in discussion and reflection in order to determine why some students feel a entitled to dominate the discussion, and others do not. She also suggests that teachers should allow students to work in same-sex groups, arguing that female students tend to develop more confidence and take more risks when they work this way (she supports this with empirical research). She doesn’t say that everyone within these groups will get along; it often happens that the differences in power along other lines become more apparent. But once these differences are recognized and students actually get a chance to see how they play out, students can begin to reflect critically on who they are and begin to question what they’d taken for granted. When students understand that everyone else is not the same as they are (and nor should they be) they can ideally engage in constructive, creative discourse.
My experience in Women’s Studies classrooms resonates with her analysis. I’ve grown far more as a researcher, critical thinker, and become more creative since I’ve changed my major and worked in classes dominated by female students. Although that’s likely part of a “growing up” process that would have occurred anyways, I attribute a lot of that growth to the safety, encouragement and sense of belonging I’ve found in Women’s Studies classes. The space Shmier describes exists in these settings. There is a unspoken agreement within these classes that all students should be respected, and individual voices matter. There’s an understanding that competition/debate does not facilitate intellectual curiosity, but turn classrooms into a contest in which the only people who speak are the confident/charismatic – which in our culture, tends to be men/majority races or the disproportionately smaller number of women who were socialized to be this way. I find it unfortunate that I have never enjoyed this space to really be myself and find my “academic voice” within a classroom, and therefore agree with Shmier’s point – there is no reason this environment couldn’t exist within classrooms that teach more “conventional” subjects.
However, the experiences of the sessional instructors I’ve known suggests that there isn’t much room within the academy for the critical pedagogue. Like Shmier, Briskin addresses the institutional factors contributing to silence/lack of safety within the classroom. She argues for policy changes to address discrimination and what would probably be diversity/sensitivity training/instructions in critical pedagogy for teachers.
This purpose of this comment isn’t to review my text material, but draw parallels between oft-maligned (not by you, but by many others!) feminist thought and ideas that do not explicitly employ a critical perspective but arrive at similar conclusions. Her points about the merit of same-sex groups and naming suggest practical ways to develop “substantive” equality within the classroom. It’s notable that these ideas contradict a lot of the practices we experienced in the classroom; in the interest of treating everyone the same, many talented and troubled students were overlooked in order to get them off to the next grade to become another teacher’s problem. The practices are disappointing, because arguably, that’s how many students come to see themselves: as inconveniences. I see this in you and I, and the many students who are afraid to speak up in class, apologize before making a comment, and become quietly disillusioned with a university education that promised far more than it delivered.
You expressed interest in becoming a teacher here, and I’ve considered the idea as well; but you’ve likely also wondered how much difference one teacher can make within an institutional framework that encourages grade-grubbing, has little time for critical thinking activities, and awards degrees to those who enter the institution with privilege more frequently than those who do not. At the same time, there is an idealistic side of me that sees the potential in teaching, and would be happy to become a “Dr. Dube” to students who may otherwise fail to see why their education matters. It’s a position that asks one to challenge their own beliefs about who they are, what change they can affect, and what their responsibilities to other people should be within a world that honors uniqueness and creativity. I think it would be exciting to become that person who offers the space for “deep learning” that our experiences largely failed to provide. Now that I have a greater appreciation for where you and I once were, and what we’ve managed to achieve, I’m know I want to validate that understanding within the work that I do; teaching (with a critical perspective) would provide a means of doing so. If I can resist the urge to run off and join the circus or become a dirty traveling hippie instead, teaching is a viable option – institutional constraints be damned.
My final point is this: speaking of dirty traveling hippies, have you noticed a co-relation between “being an awesome teacher” and “having a history as some sort of social misfit”? I can probably think of ten Robin Williams movies based on that premise alone, so that association must have something to it (and like any Comms student worth their student loan, I know that if any sort of social phenomena shows up in popular culture, it must be significant)!
The hypocrisy of “femininity”
Feminist views on sexual morality, proper motherhood, and relationships/marriage
Emma Goldman
She considers “moralists” to be the censors and conservative factions within society (such as Christian groups) who would legislate suppress any form of discourse that does not uphold these groups’ values. She argues that such works of art often portray the social problems of the day and critiquing these values. These groups are acting out of their own self-interest instead of promoting justice.
Institutions perpetuate themselves under the guise of such values; but such institutions only serve the interests of the powerful. She cites the church – it is led and financed by the wealthy, which instills values in the congregations that work to uphold their leader’s privilege. Private property is another “sacred” institution that only benefits the wealthy; the poor are convinced to have the utmost respect for this institution even though they struggle daily just to make ends meet. The poor don’t benefit by perpetuating these instructions by complying with the value systems they promote, and they will never be free unless they realize the hypocrisy of such moral codes and lose respect for these institutions.
Women in particular are deprived of their agency when they accept the values implicit within conventional forms of relationships. Contemporary values leave chastity, motherhood, and marriage as the only “legitimate” relationship forms. Conventional values tell young people to wait until they can afford to marry before they can enjoy sex. The “virtuous” upper class young woman never gets the chance to explore her sexuality and suffers emotionally as a result. She fails to become confident; instead, she lives in fear of what others may think of her.
While conventional mores deprive the virtuous woman of emotional fulfillment and undermine her confidence, such values also create a competitor for her husband’s affections, the prostitute. Women who want to satisfy their own desires in a more natural fashion have a difficult decision to make: in order to experience sex, these women must accept the fact that they will be ostracized from society. Goldman argues that prostitution offers woman a less hypocritical outlet for their desires; as a wife or a prostitute women are selling themselves as a sex commodity, the prostitute just sells herself to many men instead of one.
Emma believes that women are “coerced” by cultural values to procreate, yet modern women exhibit a greater sense of responsibility to their potential offspring when they choose not to accept these values outright. Modern women now choose to abort children or use birth control instead of having children they cannot emotionally or physically support. They choose not to subject unwitting children to a loveless relationship or an insecure financial situation. While conventional morality would deem these choices to be “unjust” for the child, Emma argues that a decision to abort or use birth control is ethical because both the mother and child suffer less as a result. Conventional moral codes only dictate “appropriate” choices to women; their proponents are silent on the consequences women and unwanted children face in a world that can only condemn, not support them.
Emma believes a woman who acts ethically will make decisions based on self-respect and love for others, instead of uncritically following conventions. She will marry a man not so he’ll support her, but because they have a mutually fulfilling relationship; she will have children only if she wants to and has the emotional and material resources required for its care. In a world without Morality, she can enjoy her sexuality and desire to mother within the context of a loving relationship, instead of negotiating the insecurities of prostitution and marriage.
Crimethinc on ethics, relationships, prostitution, sexuality, marriage, economic exploitation in the personal realm….
As Goldman might anticipate, contemporary anarchists are a diverse group who could not be expected exhibit uniformity in relationship styles or sexuality. However, Goldman’s assumptions – her positive evaluation of human rationality, her focus on personal fulfillment, her assumption that intellectual and material freedom facilitates human happiness and happiness – exist within contemporary anarchist thoughts. Emma believes that humans chooses to work together based on empathy and compassion; to claim that humans need laws and moral codes in order to get along with one another is to degrade the potential of humanity. She would probably look around the world today, shake her head, and wonder why we would choose to remain blind to our values. Almost 100 years after she wrote, she might wonder why would still choose we waste our lives away serving the interests of others, lying to ourselves when we claim that the perfect family, the house in the suburbs, and the executive position in an oil company is something we really want (or the sociology degree, for that matter!)
Contemporary anarchists echo Goldman’s ideas. Goldman vehemently denies any claim that religion is necessary to promote ethical behavior. Similarly, the Crimethinc writer, as a representative of contemporary anarchism, claims that one who lives according to conventional values is ethically undeveloped; like a child, they accept the values of their wider culture without ever questioning the meaning and implications of such values. A morally developed person will question such values and eventually develop their own sense of justice. They dismiss conventional morality as a relic of the Christian era; although the enforcer of such laws (God) is ostensibly dead in a secular era, that moral code still lives. While Goldman claims that such laws are incorrect because they’re hypocritical and limit individual freedom, the anarchists discount these moral codes because they have no basis in empirical reality. They argue that since we can’t really know anything about the origin or reasons for such personal laws (other than the fact that we “feel” they are right) they are no more appropriate for rational beings than superstitions. There are only subjective truths, and it takes a certain amount of self-loathing to reject one’s subjective truth in favor of a higher authority (yet convenient for that authority). These anarchists dismiss conventional mores simply because they believe the notion of “universal values” is unreasonable.
Anarchists challenge individuals to uncover their own fundamental desires, and built a set of values that will allow them go pursue these desires without apology. Goldman argues that institutions hide behind values in order to promote their own interests; Crimethinc claims that such duplicity exists on an individual level as well. We validate our behavior by referencing some sort of higher moral code because we’ve been taught to apologize for our feelings and actions. Such validations are hypocritical to the extent that we are acting out of our own self-interest, which is often the case. Even those who criticize conventional mores by claiming that they hold a more “just” set of universal values (animal rights advocates are given as an example) still falsely believe in the notion of universal truth. They also note that this appeal to higher ethics lends a sense of legitimacy to one’s political programs, but a such desire for power only leads one towards fascism.
Instead of appealing to a higher power to justify one’s actions, they argue that we can choose to act compassionately based on our own ethics. Like Emma, they claim that laws have never prevented anyone from engaging in violence anyways, and behaving “justly” based on fear of punishment is in itself morally reprehensible. Chosen co-operation is more meaningful. Even if competing systems of ethics resulted in more social strife, the writer feels that this is a worthwhile trade-off for increased self-determination.
Self-fulfillment is the primary ethical imperative of anarchists. They ask: what would life look like if we fearlessly chased after what we want? According to these thinkers, living according to the desires of one’s own heart allows one to defy the despair caused by change and fear of loss:
Perhaps this world will never conform perfectly to our needs – people will always die before they are ready, perfect relationships will end in ruins, adventures will end in catastrophe and beautiful moments be forgotten. What breaks my heart is the way we flee from those inevitable truths into the arms of more horrible things. It may be true that every man is fundamentally lost in a universe that is indifferent to him, forever locked in a terrifying solitude – but it doesn’t have to be true that some people starve while others destroy food or leave fertile farms untilled. It doesn’t have to be true that men and women waste their lives away working to serve the hollow greed of a few rich men, just to survive. It doesn’t have to be that we never dare to tell each other what we really want, to share ourselves honestly, to use our talents and capabilities to make life more bearable, let alone more beautiful. That’s unnecessary tragedy, stupid tragedy, pathetic and pointless. It’s not even utopian to demand that we put an end to farces like these. (16)
They are willing to risk the dangers and conflicts of subjectivity, hoping that freedom will finally allow us to engage in discourse about our values, rather than accepting any one form of truth uncritically.
Reflections on “A Room of One’s Own”
In “A Room of One’s Own,” Virginia Woolfe’s employs a narrative of her travels throughout London articulate her explanation for the paucity of female writers throughout history, and the lack of great masterpieces among those that did have the opportunity to set pen to paper. She argues that women have never engaged in creative projects because throughout history, they have consistently lacked appropriate space, sufficient material resources, and the social support necessary to become geniuses. Although Woolfe idealizes the act of creation as a path towards transcendence, for women in particular the creative process as a consistent struggle against one’s own intellectual and emotional limitations, as well as material constraints. In this essay, I will outline Woolfe’s opinions regarding the preconditions to creativity, and the significance of favorable external circumstances to finding one’s own voice. I found her discussion about the importance of confidence and material stability in the creative process to be particularly illuminating in terms of my own experiences as a writer; her observations have confirmed some of my suspicions about why this has been a personal struggle. Since writing is such an integral component of academic work, I identified with the difficulties inherent to finding one’s own voice, yet I agree with Woolfe’s assertion the struggle is necessary for the development of culture and is worthwhile on an individual level as well. Woolfe’s analysis of the creative difficulties faced by women is as relevant today as it was in her time.
By discussing female writers of the past, Woolfe illuminates the effects of that intangible quality of confidence on the creative process; one must have a strong belief in themselves before they can even attempt to create. Studying in empty libraries until the late hours of the morning can feel like a lonely process even one is not actively discouraged from undertaking such projects; Woolfe herself understands how writing can seem futile when the wider culture doesn’t take one’s views seriously. However, in Woolfe’s time male writers, as well as many women, mocked intelligent women or encouraged them to graciously accept their inferiority. The pressure and rewards of conforming to such opinions would have been close to impossible to avoid, and it would have been easy to lose oneself in the midst of such animosity. In the present time, it is still difficult for women to achieve material wealth and enjoy creative freedom, but our culture tends to accept that women will make the effort and often encourages this. One can take the present situation for granted quite easily. Woolfe unapologetically admonishes women who fail to take advantage of the opportunities they do have to learn and create. Although her lecture may be a bit unfair to women then and now that still struggle to become materially independent, as a writer I appreciated how strongly she believed in women’s capacity to make that commitment to themselves. Many of the precursors necessary to independence are difficult for women to obtain, since some material circumstances are beyond individual women’s control (her treatment of class is limited to that extent; not many women are fortunate enough to receive an inheritance, and structural conditions inhibit women’s earning potential). However, it’s worthwhile to remember that despite circumstances, women can access an inner resolve that can help them through the difficult process of creation. This opinion resonates with my experience; although social support is important, I have learned that I ultimately have to believe in what I do if I am going to create anything that might matter to others. I appreciate how she respects women enough to ask them to take responsibility for their art; if women can choose to believe in themselves, they can move beyond feeling victimized by circumstance and create their own reality instead.
I found it difficult to reconcile Woolfes idea of “feminine knowledge” with her emphasis on elemental truth. By encouraging women to write of their experiences with integrity, Woolfe attempts to revalue women’s experiences, perhaps to inspire confidence among her contemporaries. She catalogues the unexplored corners of women’s experience with excitement, and even argues that if given enough time, women writers would eventually develop their own language and literary devices to articulate their experiences and perspectives. But as long as a mind retained any semblance of a “gendered” perspective, it would seem to lack the objectivity that Woolfe admires in the writing of Shakespeare or Austen. With her notion of the androgynous mind, she appears to argue that there are at least two essential truths, masculine and feminine, that achieve “incandescence” only when tempered with attributes of the opposite sex. But her argument leads to a differentiation of the sexes on an epistemological basis, instead of a union. She also suggests that women’s increasing material prosperity and independence would enhance the development of a separate form of feminine knowledge, literature and communication techniques; yet women and men would discard the sex-consciousness that she feels limited artistic work of her time. Men and women of the future would think differently, but they would not be so concerned with justifying themselves. History since her time seems to indicate that this is not the case; women who enter the public sphere may achieve material success, but they still struggle to maintain their integrity in a world built on masculine values. Sex-consciousness is at least as relevant for both genders today as it was in her time. If the androgynous mind can most accurately apprehend truth, our culture has yet to develop a method for both genders to move past their own particular prejudices, despite the affluence of our culture in general. Perhaps this is a result of the inequalities that remain; the material condition of women has improved, but perhaps not enough to move beyond the phase of mutual animosity between the genders.
Her idea of transcendence is a form of unity that respects differences in perspectives and experience among men and women. Although our culture hasn’t achieved this ideal, the possibility that women can achieve creative success and maintain their sense of self is an attractive promise. She encourages her contemporaries to believe that their experiences and ideas have an important relationship with a deeper truth. It’s unfortunate that such a positive evaluation of women’s experiences is still so necessary within our culture today. She acknowledges the difficulties of maintaining integrity within an apathetic or hostile culture; her examination of the resulting inner struggle resonated with me. Until one is materially independent it is easy to unconsciously fear the disapproval of caretakers and confidantes, and take that fear into all of life’s activities. Writing in particular can be particularly emotionally problematic if a person lives in such fear; in my experience writing has become a way to become aware of those internal limitations and change those beliefs. Woolfe addresses process of self-awareness when she contemplates the limitations of women’s work, and notices how her perspective towards men changed when she became materially self-sufficient. She became less angry and resentful, and acknowledged men for their humanity. But confidence and self-respect are so integral to understanding; until one accepts their own humanity they cannot begin to appreciate another’s. In my opinion, this is one of Woolfe’s most profound insights; you cannot even begin to apprehend elemental or historical truths until you truly believe you are an important part of this reality.
Woolfe’s work has some limitations; for example she claims that the English woman is so insignificant that no one would even want to “civilize” a black woman according to that standard. That comment seemed racist, but her analysis of gender and class disparities suggests a writer who was attempting to look beyond the limitations of her culture. Although she didn’t always succeed, her analyses of gender and class disparities were often insightful. By applying these insights to the creative process, the limitations of gendered understandings and class experiences seem personally relevant. She speaks as a woman who genuinely understands the struggle to create and achieve freedom from one’s illusions, and suggests that this is possible – but only if one is willing to fully invest their heart and spirit into the process.
The androgynous mind.
One with an androgynous mind doesn’t take up the “special causes” of the other sex, but rather thinks in an unbiased, rational manner, and articulates emotion freely. It doesn’t think of itself as being sexed, and therefore cannot hold an opinion about the other gender.
In such a sex-conscious era (evidenced by the number of books men write about women) this state of mind would be difficult to achieve. She blames the suffrage movement for this – men became exceptionally defensive because they had never been challenged before. In a sex-conscious world, men no longer see women in romantic terms, as Tennyson did – in the novel by Mr. A, women are sex objects. The reviewers praise his work, although he is so self-concious his figure overshadows everything else he may be trying to articulate in his work. He is asserting his masculinity in his work; the Fascists are doing so through politics in Italty, and even want a great poet to articulate these values. The celebrated writers of that time had no sense of the feminine, and could never inspire creativity in women because these values simply seem immature to them.
To be a great writer, you must be able to inspire thought in other’s minds. You cannot do so if you are only speaking of your own individual, gendered experience. Great writers purge the idol of gender, articulating the common experience.
