Both “Oppression,” by Marilyn Frye, and “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” by Johnson convey similar ideas that when analyzing issues of gender and gender relations, that the point of view must take on that of a “big picture.” In other words, both caution that a view that is too narrow can result in missing the point. Frye uses the analogy of a bird cage: “if you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at htat one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire at any time it wanted to go somewhere … It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere.” Similarly, Johnson distinguishes the system of patriarchy from the individuals that participate in it. He explains that patriarchal culture includes and involves individuals, shapes individuals and is shaped by individuals, but cannot be reduced to the people who participate in it because it is a system. Thus, people who live in a patriarchal society are not all inherently consciously misogynistic, but are still affected by the omnipresence of symbols in popular culture that convey the defining elements of patriarchy. This relationship between the individual and the social system results in socialization, which is the development of a sense of identity according to the constraints of the system. Finally, individuals who participate in a social system will tend to choose the “path of least resistance” when it comes to making choices in daily life.
Through these two articles it was eventually made clear that you cannot always understand a system just by looking at the individuals who participate in it. And clearly, our current system of gender identity contains many inequalities. In Johnson’s writing, he explains that once the system is distinguished from the individuals, that it becomes clear why an issue such as violence against women is not solved by targeting the individuals who commit such crimes, because the actions of the individuals are not being carried out in a vacuum. So to solve this problem, the problems with the system must be solved, which requires that the individuals who participate in it must do so differently so as to re-shape the system that shapes them. Ultimately, it is the system that much change, for the system is socially constructed, as is gender – in another course I took we often discussed how sex is biological, while gender is socially constructed. Yet this all sounds quite ambitious. At the end of the reading, Johnson states that a later chapter will discuss ways to do this, but I am skeptical of how this could possibly occur on a large enough scale. One main point that I took away from the article is that everybody is involved in the system, that it does not have to be conscious. I think that this relates very well to our previously discussed ideas of “programming” as well as consumerism of raunch culture and hyper-sexuality. Perhaps people can be convinced to gradually change their behavior and say, not tell sexist jokes. Perhaps other people will catch on and there will be a snowball effect. But as long as people buy products, watch movies, and consume other elements of culture that convey patriarchal messages, whether we consciously personally feel victimized by them or not, I will still lean toward the pessimistic side of change actually happening. On one level its ridiculous that such messages are as prevalent as they are – you would think that if half of the population are female, and then there are some males who don’t believe in objectifying females, that eventually a “majority” should be established and people would learn not to perpetuate patriarchal culture. Of course that is an oversimplification, for then if we consider some of Ariel Levy’s arguments which apply well in this context, if women continue to objectify themselves and belittle “womanhood” in relationship to “manhood” then in many cases they are probably contributing to patriarchy and being counterproductive.
My Response to Kirsten's Post on Oppression and Patriarchy:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Johnson and Lorde’s articles I felt similar feelings that Kirsten had expressed in her blog. We currently live in a society that is composed of individuals. Each individual has his or his own personal set of beliefs. Individuals are partially shaped by social institutions. Examples of these institutions are religion, education, economy and family (Johnson 1). Ultimately, according to Johnson, not only does the individual “make the social system happen”, but also the system shapes the individual (3).
While I agree with Johnson’s notion that there is an exchange of ideas between the system and the individual, I believe that this exchange is unequal. My question is how much of an effect does the individual have on the system? I believe that the individual does have an impact, but ultimately it is not all that significant. That does not mean I do not believe in voicing one’s opinion and standing up for one’s rights, I am politically active and did have an internship working in politics. However, with that being said, I am realistic in believing that the system has the final say. Thus, while I do not want to sound too pessimistic and say that it is not worth it to fight for one’s believes to be right, I believe that it is more beneficial to spend one’s time on certain issues rather than trying to tackle all the issues in society.
For example, I am a supporter of women’s rights. However, while I do not condone sexist comments, I find it more important to neglect this issue, and focus my time on the issue of violence against women. I find sexist messages that are portrayed in the media insignificant compared to other issues that women face, like domestic violence. Like Kirsten mentioned, I probably have been programmed to accept, and ultimately ignore the belittling of women in television shows like The Real Housewives of Orange County. However, whether or not I have been programmed, I do not believe that an individual’s stance against images that promote patriarchy will impact a media company’s final decision on whether or not to air them. The only way to stop a multi-billion dollar company from broadcasting sexist shows and images is for the system, which includes institutions like the government and even the media company itself, to prohibit it. Thus, I believe that the system has a greater say over an individual.
I believe that there is only so much an individual can do to change a society and the rest is up to the system. While, Johnson would blame me for placing a large amount of responsibility on the system, my response to him would be that an individual is only capable of so much, because in the end the system has the final say.
It is easy to accept both author’s argument that an individual can only do so much in our complex society. However, it helped me to relate this idea to an example closer to home. For the sport of swimming in college, there is both an individual and combined level of effort. Every girl must swim individually, relying only on herself and the hard work she put into the sport. A specific amount of points are awarded to each place, first place receiving the most. At the end of the meet, all individual points are added up to find out which team’s combined scores wins the meet.
ReplyDeleteAlthough every single person has a part in the meet, it is impossible for one person to win a meet on her own. For example, even if I won all of the events I swum, my points would never be enough to outscore the other team, and therefore could never determine who won the meet. Along the same lines of looking at a birdcage and underestimating its strength, it is also possible (and common) to overestimate the strength of an individual. Considering this makes it easier for me to understand how limited the role of an individual really is when it is trying to affect an entire system. In the end, the result of the meet depends on every single team member doing her part.
I agree with Frye and Johnson when they claim an individual’s role is limited. One person’s greatest actions can never be more than a group of people’s united act. Thus, when we try to make a systematic change it makes the most sense to target the system as a whole. However, I am clueless how we would approach an entire system that we all participate in and perpetuate daily. Ending the chapter without any solutions makes me think Johnson is just as dumbfounded as me. Although he suggests we jump ahead to chapter 10, It is very difficult for me to think of how we could change the way our culture functions and completely rewrite history. Like Kirsten pointed out, as long as we participate in our daily activities such as going to movies and buying everyday products, the cycles of oppression will live on. I think in order for a change to be made, we would almost need to start over altogether. Therefore, even if I could flip to chapter 10, I would be extremely skeptical of anything he could bring up.
Correction on my blog post:
ReplyDeleteI accidently referred to Frye as Lorde (the author whose reading is due Thursday). I mixed up the two authors name by mistake.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteFantastic posts for today -- you've all done a really nice job of laying out the various arguments presented by these authors, and then going several steps further to discuss the ways in which these ideas interface with your own lives. Caren, I'm sorry not to have included ch. 10; we'll talk in class about Johnson's proposed "solutions," and what we each think might/might not work.