I've been posting comments over at my friend Jackie's blog in an attempt to get her to answer some questions I have about feminism, particularly in how it values gender roles in modern western society. I think she is more qualified to answer the question than anyone else I know, I only hope she doesn't charge me tuition. Every once in a while I get locked into a subject I want to know more about, particularly in the face of insufficient Google-ability.
While I don't know where our conversation may be headed (other than to a end in short time), I do know that for me, it is part of a larger internal dialog. I've been thinking of subjects and themes I might be able to use in some fictional story I'd like to write. In particular, every good story has to have a defining conflict and certain archetypal characters (a la Campbell's studies of Hero Myths, of which I have recently become aware - thanks Gregg). The characters, set, and setting I think will be the easiest parts of my story. I'm having the most trouble with the deeper conflict itself. The surface conflicts are always man v man, man v self, or man v nature, etc. No, I'm talking about the thematic aspect of the conflict, like free will v determinism (Brave New World, 1984, etc.) or truth v beauty (Frankenstein, Romeo and Juliet, etc.). I've been trying to think of other "great" philosophical conflicts that might exist. I had been thinking that "freedom v security" might fit until I started to realize that that is really the same as free will v determinism. The latest one I've been trying to reduce to its elemental bits is what I've so far been calling "equality v identity".
If you've followed me so far, lucky you, because I expect I might be getting abstract to the point of incomprehensible, but if not, try and bear with me. The conflict of equality v identity is most easily represented in my mind in the western systems of government and economy. The most fundamental underlying principle of our government is that "all men are created equal" and this manifests in our system of "one vote per person" (sorta, if you ignore the electoral college). Our economy is based on an exactly contrary fundamental notion that people should be free to make the most of themselves, "the cream shall rise to the top", etc. Capitalism itself is based on inequality. I think people feel happiest when these two opposing concepts are balanced and in perpetual battle with each. A country that becomes too capitalist has no middle class, and is essentially fascist. A country that becomes too equal has only one class, the perfect communist dystopian paradise, where no one is allowed to achieve any more than anyone else. So, it seems the best results are obtained in the balance between equality and identity. This is similar again to the balanced conflict between free will and determinism, that is, fully determined lives are suicidally boring, and fully undetermined, ie: "100% free" lives are too unpredictable to be sustainable (if you can't at least predict the sun will rise in the morning, it will be hard to live etc.). But back to equality v identity, the debate I'm having now is if "identity" is really the right word to describe the concept I'm after to describe this conflict. I feel like "achievement" isn't fundamental enough, because it goes deeper than that, achievement is tied to ego, and ego to identity. I'm open to sugestion if you're grokking all this.
Anyway, the tie in to feminism is the notion that culturally-defined gender roles (or cultural gender identities) are intrinsically bad. I don't know if that is true or not, but if so, it makes me wonder what ways of identifying oneself are ever good? I've heard arguments against nationalism, religiosity, provincialism, race-pride, etc. But don't most people agree that we should celebrate our differences too? And if so, how specifically? Are such differences only appropriately celebrated on the individual level? Is it always bad once these differences are celebrated on the group level? How can we ignore the most obvious differences between us (like gender)? It makes me wonder if pretending such differences don't exist might be as evil and extreme as pretending that they are the only things that matter, thus my "new" philosophical conflict - equality v identity. Would an uber-feminist that considers any gender-identity to be a bad thing be a convincing fictional villain? (probably not). Such a villain could be good in the sense that, like all villains, it would be easy to see how her motivations were pure, but how the execution of her principles could be evil. A redneck racist would make a more convincing but equivalent villain, but also boring and not new. I think I'm headed in the right direction anyway.
I haven't re-read this post, so I apologize if it is full of grammar issues. I'll proof it tonight after work.
11 comments:
I think the distinction you're missing is that feminism is and has always been a social movement that changes according to and is inextricably linked to its historical moment. Therefore, the more restrictive cultural gender roles of the fifties were critiqued in one way by feminists in the sixties and seventies, and as gender roles have evolved, so have feminist critiques of them.
For me, the main point is that gender roles are constructed by the culture we live in, and are not innocent, harmless or unquestionable. We have agency in living as a particular gendered person. My idea of womanhood and motherhood may not be the same as my sister's, but I don't question her right to live her own female life-- until her conceptions infringe on my rights.
Ok. You're going to get a bunch of field experts challenging you it seems:)
I vigorously disagree with some of your equality v identity argument.
I want to clarify the interpretation of "All men are created equal." Although the idea does manifest itself in democracy, such as we have it, the rhetoric behind this statement is important to remember. "All men are created equal" was followed by some qualifiers in the Declaration.
"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The text does not imply equality in the sense of egalitarianism, but equality in very specific rights. Furthermore, the historical data reveals that these rights were derived from the philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment, very specifically Locke and Hume. In their work they speak of "natural rights" that each person was owed by their existence. Based on this, we can then extrapolate that what they refer to by equality, is not an equality of result, but a equality in the RIGHT to pursue one's happiness etc etc. There is no mention that everyone should be equally happy, for instance.
I am not saying that you don't believe this, but often the "All men are created equal" statement is interpreted in a vacuum and then your logic seems to suggest your interpretation is similar. What I disagree with is the notion that this somehow leads to the "cream rising to the top." Can you clarify?
Historically, Adam Smith comes from the same school of thought as Locke and Hume. Individualism, natural rights, and capitalism are intrinsic to each other! The same philosophical school is behind the Declaration and the father of modern capitalism. This equality and identity you speak of is not at odds but necessary to each other, which is perhaps why you see a connection. I'll come back to this.
Capitalism in NOT based on inequality. It is based on an equality of process, but not of results. In fact capitalism is based on utilitarianism and modern capitalism is based on Walrasian Equilibrium or Pareto Optimality. These do not say 1 cannot end up with everything while everyone else has nothing, but what it does say is that exchange will happen for the mutual benefit of all parties and that capitalism allows us to reach (I am working on a paper that challenges that it is ever actually reached) Pareto Optimality. PO is the condition in which you cannot make someone better off without making someone worse off. But again, I see the problem in the multi-use of the meaning of equality.
To come back to the connection...
The balance you speak of is capitalism. The imbalance we have is the result of government intervention in the capitalist process. The reduction of the middle class is the direct result of government, stepping into the market system and creating inequity by protecting the rich, corporations, and those with power.
Capitalism argues that everyone should be equal inasmuch as everyone should face the same risks which is perfectly consistent with the original intent of the Declaration. What neither capitalism nor the Founders promise is egalitarianism. What capitalism does promise IS the most equal of processes. Equality is not about people being wealthy and people starving, but about is everyone TREATED in the same manner.
Sidebar: (Interestingly, Spike sent me something about fair tax recently. And from the perspective of Pareto Optimality, what is unjust and coercive is progressive taxation.)
Identity may be the wrong word, but the problem with your argument is not semantic. The idea that capitalism is based in inequality is incorrect, and that it is somehow opposed to the Founders' definition of equal is as well.
*note: this comment has undergone revisions for clarification*
You've confused me with overuse of pronouns. I'll respond but I need clarification.
"I am not saying that you don't believe this"
Which this? Believe what exactly? You presented several things in the previous paragraph.
"often the "All men are created equal" statement is interpreted in a vacuum and then your logic seems to suggest your interpretation is similar."
My interpretation is similar to what? Sorry if I sound dense.
"What I disagree with is the notion that this (*) somehow leads to the "cream rising to the top." Can you clarify?"
*Again, that what somehow leads...?
While I wait for the clarifications above, I will say that the whole capitalism vs democracy (as I perceive it) was meant to be nothing more than a material analogy for my larger concept of equilibrium between equality and identity. I welcome any and all objections to the analogy, it just means to me that I need to find better ones. I remian confident that my overall hunch, that the concepts of equality and identity are diametrically opposed, is true (in a similar way as truth and beauty and free will and determinism are diametric).
Help me out with a better analogy if you think the capitalism vs democracy one sucks. IN tretrospect, I think it was an overly-complex on to use, but maybe I can extend my thoughts on it as a different post.
Again, the whole goal here is to use the equality v identity conflict as a story theme. Maybe one of those sports movies would be a better analogy. You know, the ones where the team sucks but they have one super hot-shot player with a huge ego. Her ego is what keeps the team demoralized but the chick with the ego can't see that, all she sees is her shitty team that "keeps her from winning" (not "them"). The team finally wins the big championship only after the "identity" goes into equilibrium with the equality of the team. Perhaps the hot-shot makes a pass to the worst player on the team who scores the winning goal.
Or maybe the disequilibrium could be to the other side, the equlaity side, where you have a seriously regimented team, who can't win because they keep their star player down. The star player is the likable outsider and has all the odds against him, (maybe the rest of the team hates him or resents his reputation as a hot-shot). The hot shot stays humble until the championship when he cuts it all loose and steals a pass to the villainous kid who is most responsible for keeping the team all "oppressed". The stolen pass gets converted into an amazing play by the hot-shot outsider who wins the championship. Yadda yadda.
Agian, I'm not too hung up on the government/economy equilibrium, its just a tool for me to get to something else. That something else being the equality/identity conflict.
I was trying to expolore the feminism thing with jackie some in the hoopes I might find an interesting villain within it. I don't think I have or will.
I'm trying my darndest to follow along, then got derailed by the middle of Tom's comment. You said capitalism is not based on inequality. Yet, modern capitalism is based on PO, which you then say "PO is the condition in which you cannot make someone better off without making someone worse off."
Isn't that basing capitalism off of inequality?
And if capitalism isn't based off of inequality, then how exactly is PO tied into your point.
Oh and I totally agree with you that government has screwed up capitalism.
Wait a minute.. i'm supposed to be a lurker, which means this is taboo.
ciao.
Sorry for the hanging pronouns. I was trying to write too much too fast with no particular mental organization. Welcome to Tom's stream of consciousness. My polisci prof would kill me for such bad writing.
I guess better than trying to go line by line I will try to simplify.
1. You imply by juxtaposing equality and capitalism (as inequitable) that you define equality as stated by the Founders as egalitarianism. I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase "all men are created equal". Equality as defined by the Founders did not mean egalitarianism. Instead the Founders refer to "natural rights of existence" and that all men have equal claim to said rights.
2. You write: "Our economy is based on an exactly contrary fundamental notion that people should be free to make the most of themselves, "the cream shall rise to the top", etc."
I am struggling to see the connection between the "cream rising to the top", and that people should be free to make the most of themselves. How does people's making the most of themselves lead to an elite class? Or is this what you are trying to say?
3. I like the equality and identity metaphor. However I think you need to define equality and identity more clearly. In using capitalism and democracy you run into some fundamental problems, I believe. The foremost problem is that capitalism and democracy are complements. I believe that using democracy to establish equality is a misreading of the particular phrasing of the Declaration for the way in which you want to use the word equality. This is my interpretation of your theory, so correct me if I am mistaken.
Sidebar: I'd like to differentiate between equality of process and equality of results to begin with and maybe move on from there.
To address Chris' comments:
1. Pareto Optimality is a static equilibrium. Suppose you have a 2 person, 1 good economy. Person A, Person B, Good X. For simplicity let us assume there are 10 of the good in the economy. In this framework we have (assuming the good can only take on positive integers) the following possible Pareto Optimal points: {(A,B)|(0,10), (1,9), (2,8), (3,7), (4,6), (5,5), (6,4), (7,3), (8,2), (9,1), (10,0)}
At each point, the only way to deviate from that point is to take away a good from either person A or person B. A point such as (5,4) is not Pareto Optimal since there is another unit of good in the economy that could be given to person B to make him/her better off that will result in no loss of good to person A.
So once again we face the difference between an equality of process and an equality of results.
At every Pareto Optimal point we can say there is an equality of process since no one can be made better off.
At the point (5,5) we have equality of results. Both person A and person B have 5 units of the good. It is Pareto Optimal as well since you cannot give person A a 6th unit of the good unless you take it away from person B.
What Walsras' Law tells us is that the unencumbered capitalist free market will achieve Pareto Optimality.
But supposing we are at the Pareto Optimal point (2,8) and we define equality as a result. Then the only way to get to (5,5) is to take three units of the good from person B and give them to person A. This seems to me an egregious inequality. Why should person A get preferential treatment and why should person B be subjected to coercive behavior?
Capitalism, in its pure form, and yes that rarely if ever occurs, allows for equality of process but does not guarantee equality of results. Policies of redistribution (ie. taxation) are inherently coercive. If everyone faces the same set of risk and reward and the result is both winners and losers, I find that more equitable than to coercively strip the winners of their assets to give to the losers to achieve equality of results. This is why I argue capitalism is not based on inequality.
Have I been clearer? Again I apologize. Your idea Casey is interesting and I'd like to see if I can re-frame it in a more appropriate metaphor.
"I am struggling to see the connection between the "cream rising to the top", and that people should be free to make the most of themselves. How does people's making the most of themselves lead to an elite class? Or is this what you are trying to say?"
It is what I am trying to say. You later went on to state that, "What Walsras' Law tells us is that the unencumbered capitalist free market will achieve Pareto Optimality." In the business world, it is not my objective to be certain that every deal I make is as advantageous to "entity B" as it is to me. In fact, it is my objective to be absolutely certain that I am getting a better deal (that I have, with my silver tongue, ensured that entity B accepts that the Pareto Optimal point of (6,4) is best for him). Many businesses are very successful at doing this. I am merely speculating, but it seems to me that an unencumbered free market would lead to gross inequality (10,0) eventually. As you said, the free market process might be equal, but it would lead to inequality of results. It almost sounds as if the (10,0) situation is acceptable to you as long as it came about through equality of process, right?
But aren't the fundamental human rights you spoke of before irrelevant to a pure capitalist free market? In a pure capitalist free market, isn't everything trade-able? Including your own freedom? I suspect that in a pure free market without any democratic government at all (to protect "inalienable rights") a small number of people would eventually own the lives and productivity of many others ((10,0), checkmate, fascism, feudalism, or whatever you want to call it). After all, isn't the recognition of human rights in and of themselves an encumbrance of the capitalist free market? If so, I think the capitalism v democracy analogy I've been working on is still useful. I don't think you can dismiss equality of results as being irrelevant as long as equality of process is preserved. Perhaps when you speak of "equality of process" v "equality of results" it is in fact analogous to when I speak of "capitalism" v "democracy" and "identity" v "equality"? We can't let jargon cloud our understanding of each other too much.
I also wonder about causality. You had said in the comment before last that, "The imbalance we have is the result of government intervention in the capitalist process." While I agree that government intervention in the capitalist process does sometimes screw things up, I actually wonder if it goes both ways. That perhaps the imbalance we have today is actually due more to capitalist intervention in the government process (ie: the explosion of lobbyists and the dependence of candidates on money for TV advertising).
I could go on, but I'll stop there for now.
I've done a little more thinking on the subject, and I hope it has gotten me a little closer to your thoughts. Let's forget about my "equlity v identity" thing for the moment. Let me instead try and shoe-horn your "process v results" better into "capitalism v democracy". I had just implied in my previous comment that process is to results as capitalism is to democracy, but now I've got myself wondering if it isn't the other way around (that is, maybe "process" is more akin to "democracy" and "results" is more akin to "capitalism"), or if process v results isn't yet another independent ying/yang concept on its own (like truth v beauty and free will v determinism). I say so because you can't really make x is to y as a is b statements about truth, beauty, free will, and determinism and I suspect that we might be making similar non-sense out of trying to force-fit democracy and capitalism to either process/results, equality/identitiy, or yin/yang type concepts.
(May I just call process/results means/ends to make it more familiar?)
i cannot comment in a conversation where there are parentheses with numbers ;p
but i will make some drive-by comments to continue a conversation of ideas within historically-based reality and not 'pure' theory:
The founders' philosophy came from a particular history and social world. their conceptions of freedom and equality were limited by and for their social class and reflected a conversation amongst philosophers of the time. Their ideas have been expanded, curtailed and in some regards i consider them inoperative in our historical moment. The constitution reflects a philosophy of the winners, however, that does not mean that the winning philosophy is necessarily correct or should be unquestioned.
That said, the founders writings specifically point to the need of government as a necessary evil and one that would establish a permanent ruling class different from the ruling classes in europe, yet not egalitarian. Madison was as elitist as you can get and believed that there was a class of individuals that should consistently rule the underclass (i'm sure that i dont to remind you that that underclass included women, any non-whites, and non-propertied males). He also wanted to create a central bank because he believed that government and the ruling class needed to have control of the capitalist system. Jefferson wrote and spoke about some grand ideals, but he lived his live completely opposite of his philosophy. They derived their power from government and created a government that would perpuate the power of their class.
I also feel the need to remind Tom that capitialism was not born in a vacuum but is a creation of a social system with winners and those winners wanted to continue to expand that power, politically and economically. There is no society, culture, kingdom in which the economic system of that society, culture, kingdom is not inherently tied to the social system of that society. Simpy said, there can never be 'pure' capitialism that can be instituted to repair the perceived problems of social institutions 'interference' into the economic system.
Casey-Jackie says, 'thank god for the entire last sentence of your last post.' that is exactly what we have been driving at, why i didnt say it i dont know :) hehehe
I just finshed reading an article (link below) and I pondered wether I should make it a posting of its own. I may promote it if it doesn't get any attention here. Anyway, the article is about a western woman's experience living in Saudi Arabia. It illustrates the conflict between the ethic of respecting all cultures equally and respectign all people equally. I personally find the latter ethic to be by far and away the stronger, more important one. The way women are treated in Saudi Arabia is a crime against humanity and it should be stopped. It makes me wonder if the United States would be as complicit with South Africa's old government if they had as much oil as does Saudi Arabia.
Post a Comment