Sigrid Stangl ladidadida@escapeartist.com
Bob,
I wonder how you accommodate the peculiar situation of women in your - I contend - rather patriarchal individualism.
Life's meaning may not be tied to material comfort, but the very contemplation of life's meaning ASSUMES a degree of material comfort. The term "post-materialist" comes to mind - generally ascribed to those who have the privilege of engaging in reflective inquiries because their basic needs have been met far beyond the "basic" and any threat to this 'material comfort' is out of view.
Industrialization, urbanization, division of labor and the 'alienation of the worker' have made the attainment of basic material needs an exceedingly complex task. Lack of education (which is relative - but it is this changing society which sets and raises the minimum standard), gender and race discrimination, all have enormous impact on people's ability to attain the minimum conditions you assert: the possibility for striving, choice and option.
Sticking to educational issues and various forms of discrimination, you will easily be able to defend your position, which (still) allows for some degree of equal opportunity. But let us turn now to the situation of women. Staying within the confines of the "discrimination label" we still assume a "sameness" that isn't however given adequate justice for whatever forms of historic and cultural bigotry; here women do not differ from any other form of group discriminated and oppressed on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc.
But if this is the sole inquiry devoted to the situation of women, adequate depth is thoroughly avoided by self-serving over-simplifying argumentation for gender neutral "sameness" that I don't find to be given.
The "family" (traditional or not) appears to me the greatest enemy to your individualism. Indeed, most great "thinkers" have never taken the women into account in their theories. S. M. (-: Okin points out, for example, in her book "Justice, Gender and the Family," Rousseau's and Hume's unpardonable "idealized family," where they hold that 'justice' is a concept reserved for the public domain rather than the private. That justice has no place in the family, because it is either impossible or unnecessary to uphold. The inequalities resulting for women out of their reproductive quality and motherhood are brushed of as "natural" and women's subordination to men in turn is justified. Okin quotes Rousseau at one point saying in essence that family, based on love, does not require justice, because based on something "greater". However, the term "family" is already misleading here, because it is women and children - not men - who are asked to forsake claims to justice.
Women are the bearers of LIFE; the existentialists might want to devote themselves to the source before analyzing the product. The problem arising when considering the 'mother' is that she isn't involved in a contractual relationship with her child - nor her irresponsible environment for that matter. The mother isn't an individual entity one can isolate. The ability to assert interests, make claims, even engage in some minimum responsibilities towards society, given retributions weighted and assessed in prior (the social contract) - those are the qualities of the individualist man. Competition is held up as a positive driving force for work. But where in this account is the mother/child relationship reflected? Neither child nor mother are free to choose themselves before the other. The child is dependent, and the women are all the more tied to the claims of their children, the more dependent the latter are.
I hope you can fill in the blank I'm leaving now, not going further into the intricacies of the mother/child relationship. The point is that a kind of Marxism can be seen to be reflected in this relationship which doesn't find inclusion in liberal individualism. There are feminist theories on alternative models to the contractual societal model, as set up by the male tradition, but that would divert now from the current fact of this contractual society and how women and men are dealing within it, respectively.
Women, who are held to be 'equal', must first be seen as different. Equality isn't a given but must be achieved by the current regime - as their dichotomy rests on having to measure up against the male standard of individualism and 'self-responsibility' rather than a standard more natural to them, which would emphasize the virtues of the group/community/society (as a reflection of the mother/child relationship) to a much higher degree. [Here, I myself hold certain reservations about the total stereotyping of the 'nature of women,' find it however a valid point by those radicals making it. What is odd about it, is that male image sketched here isn't one based on his intrinsic 'nature' but the possibilities and abilities that result out of this 'nature.' The proclamation of a 'women's nature' however again suggest little choice and natural fate, which I personally can't submit to.]
Understand, that the inequalities of women are not natural but relate to an exclusive standard that has historically and is presently not accounting for them. Revolution would have to include both men and women and at the present conditions this seems unlikely while the majority of those holding the assets for revolution are male and thereby - all too often unreflectively - content within this system. So the only, albeit restrained solution for women at the present moment, are policies that minimize their biological difference. I am not arguing for this, I hold it as a sad fact.
In your response to my earlier note you made quite the statement when you said: "What affects MY world is what in fact threatens it." Here I hope to have shown how extreme notions of individualism in fact threaten every woman's world. Every women, not just every mother - and here we then arrive at the discrimination sphere - because every women is held and treated as a potential mother who cannot equally succeed in an over individualized society that doesn't not (nor want to) give considerations to the unavoidable impairments that go hand in hand with motherhood.
You could arguably say that every woman has the choice against motherhood. But this neglects the minute male involvement in creating life, and raises the infinitely complex issue of sexuality, which isn't easily (if at all possible) explained by reason and logical considerations. You say the question is: "since virtually every situation in life carries some dangers, which ones are dangerous enough that I'm willing to sacrifice some of my freedom in order to protect against the danger?" If we assert the general meaningless of life, but retain the ability for personal meaning within this context, we could of course all sit down and decide the solution (again: restrained solution because adhering only to the male standard of values and worth) to the problem is the asexual option. Indeed then we could adopt a gender-neutral concept of individualism. And while we cynically ponder upon the approximate time the last human will be crawling upon the face of the earth, we will be ! content - because what happens beside us, or in this example, after and beyond us, holds no personal relevance.
If there is such a thing as 'the human condition' to which degree does individualism-run- amok try to eliminate it and replace it with a restraint definition of self, that pays little to no tribute to human relations?
Hope this came across with sufficient coherence. I realize I've left some points open and didn't go into depth with everything, but so is the nature of a rambling thought. I've only recently read myself into a bit of feminist theory, and the complexity and scope of its arguments I have most definitely not done justice to here. I have the need to assert that which I have gathered though in public forums, as it appears to me that feminist theory is still something predominantly read by women, and the logical and legitimate grounds on which this form of criticism is based, escapes a great part of the thinking world. Who of the distinguished gentlemen will reply? (-:
Sigrid
July 11th, 2001
Bob Corbett replies to Sigrid
Sigrid, a deep thanks for your very thoughtful and well-expressed argument. I am particularly thankful since you bring much more specificity to the argument than we've had before. I am convinced that the more specific and concrete we can make arguments and explanations the better we come to see differences and move to address them.
Having said that, I am first going to stay for a bit at the more abstract level, then turn attention to you concrete case of women.
I have two very different areas to reply to:
You set the stage for your analysis/argument with a more general claim about contemplation assuming a degree of material comfort. This argument is extremely unconvincing to me for three reasons:
None of these things are incompatible with holding that all other things equal, a bit of material comfort above the bare minimum is a quite USEFUL condition in helping people to come to consider and then make such a choice for a thoughtful lifestyle. I would accept that.
On the other hand, many, many of our historically most famous examples of people who turn seriously to careful introspection, analysis and choosing in the world are among those who suffer profoundly. They tend to be sufferers of oppression, desperate material need, various difficulties in dealing with other people and the world (conditions others might call "mental" problems) and profound disenchantment with the social structures of the world (a condition others might call a revolutionary temperament). Many of those do not have favorable material conditions.
I am claiming then, that this view you take and assert (which is an extremely popular one in our time) is not a very accurate historical picture of the process, at least as I see in the history of those whom we in the existentialist tradition would call those who seek a greater level of self-reflective authenticity in living.
Even with this criticism, I don't think that particular thesis is much needed for the rest of your argument. It still stands strongly, even if I am right about this particular claim being weak.
===================================
You claim:
Industrialization, urbanization, division of labor and the 'alienation of the worker' have made the attainment of basic material needs an exceedingly complex task. Lack of education (which is relative - but it is this changing society which sets and raises the minimum standard), gender and race discrimination, all have enormous impact on people's ability to attain the minimum conditions you assert: the possibility for striving, choice and option.
===============================
Corbett's reply: It cuts both ways. It may make surviving so hard that one uses all one's energy for that. In such case you are correct. On the other hand, I have suggested above that becoming conscious of being oppressed is one of the MAJOR drives which tends to make people reflective (and revolutionary).
One more point of clarification on this issue:
The central point I'm arguing here is this:
You suggest quite strongly that a very significant reason, at least an "entry" limit reason why people are not striving and choosing options is that they are materially limited.
I agree to an extremely limited degree. If absolute life and death destitution are at stake yet. I agree. Otherwise I don't.
For the past 45 years one of the most puzzling questions for me has been WHY IN THE WORLD DO SO FEW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO LIVE LIVES WHICH ARE DOMINATED BY CONSCIOUS TAKING CONTROL OF THEIR OWN MEANINGS, VALUES AND CHOICES?
I just can't get a handle on it. No variable I've ever seen seems to work well. What does seem to be known is that whatever allows this choice (and it doesn't in any way have to be ONE thing, it may be many different things), it only impacts an extremely tiny minority of the human species, and even those it does impact, it seems to touch only in limited areas of life and often only for limited times of their lives.
I think we simply don't know these things very well. We can know the FACT of it; but not the causes for it, nor the causes against it.
I would accept this since it's been my major EXPERIEMENT of my adult life -- to use my teaching to attempt to attract more people to this option than might otherwise have been attracted. I think there is evidence even in my own tiny experiment, that informing people and challenging people toward this option turns out to be attractive to some who, without others taking the role of trying to challenge them (via books, art works, teaching in schools, conversation, modeling lives of reflecting and individual control of lives and so on) would be much less likely to have discovered it on their own.
====================================
You say:But if this is the sole inquiry devoted to the situation of women, adequate depth is thoroughly avoided by self-serving over-simplifying argumentation for gender neutral "sameness" that I don't find to be given.
====================================
I reply: If what this means is that women typically and generally, have a somewhat harder path to this option than men typically do, and these two "typicals" have to do with material situation, then I am in part agreement and part not.
I accept your next argument that the SOCIAL STRUCTURES under which woman have lived -- the huge frame we general would call paternalism, the dominant form of life in virtually every so-called "civilized" society in the history of humanity -- YES, without a doubt I will accept that that particular social structure, the dominant one of all, is especially limiting to women.
I just would not accept that it is the materiality that is the factor, but a different range of oppressions such as family structure which you analyze so well.
====================================
You state:Women are the bearers of LIFE; the existentialists might want to devote themselves to the source before analyzing the product. The problem arising when considering the 'mother' is that she isn't involved in a contractual relationship with her child - nor her irresponsible environment for that matter. The mother isn't an individual entity one can isolate. The ability to assert interests, make claims, even engage in some minimum responsibilities towards society, given retributions weighted and assessed in prior (the social contract) - those are the qualities of the individualist man. Competition is held up as a positive driving force for work. But where in this account is the mother/child relationship reflected? Neither child nor mother are free to choose themselves before the other. The child is dependent, and the women are all the more tied to the claims of their children, the more dependent the latter are.
====================================
Corbett replies: This seems to me a quite accurate situation of traditional family life, one of the structures of patriarchal society. I'm not sure what the individualist needs explain about it. The individualist would find this to be an utterly arbitrary social arrangement, one which most people adopt not under pressure (males or females) but just unthinkingly, as though it were natural. [for others, not Sigrid: I do not mean to suggest that "nature" (at least in current science) does not require a woman to give birth. I only mean that process does not HAVE to happen within the structure of family as we know it today. We obviously have millions of clear examples of historical alternatives]
So I'm just quite puzzled why any of this is a challenge to individualism.
=====================================
Sigrid: you continue on:
I hope you can fill in the blank I'm leaving now, not going further into the intricacies of the mother/child relationship. The point is that a kind of Marxism can be seen to be reflected in this relationship which doesn't find inclusion in liberal individualism. There are feminist theories on alternative models to the contractual societal model, as set up by the male tradition, but that would divert now from the current fact of this contractual society and how women and men are dealing within it, respectively.
Women, who are held to be 'equal', must first be seen as different. Equality isn't a given but must be achieved by the current regime - as their dichotomy rests on having to measure up against the male standard of individualism and 'self-responsibility' rather than a standard more natural to them, which would emphasize the virtues of the group/community/society (as a reflection of the mother/child relationship) to a much higher degree. [Here, I myself hold certain reservations about the total stereotyping of the 'nature of women,' find it however a valid point by those radicals making it. What is odd about it, is that male image sketched here isn't one based on his intrinsic 'nature' but the possibilities and abilities that result out of this 'nature.' The proclamation of a 'women's nature' however again suggest little choice and natural fate, which I personally can't submit to.]
Understand, that the inequalities of women are not natural but relate to an exclusive standard that has historically and is presently not accounting for them. Revolution would have to include both men and women and at the present conditions this seems unlikely while the majority of those holding the assets for revolution are male and thereby - all too often unreflectively - content within this system. So the only, albeit restrained solution for women at the present moment, are policies that minimize their biological difference. I am not arguing for this, I hold it as a sad fact.
In your response to my earlier note you made quite the statement when you said: "What affects MY world is what in fact threatens it." Here I hope to have shown how extreme notions of individualism in fact threaten every woman's world. Every women, not just every mother - and here we then arrive at the discrimination sphere - because every women is held and treated as a potential mother who cannot equally succeed in an over individualized society that doesn't not (nor want to) give considerations to the unavoidable impairments that go hand in hand with motherhood.
You could arguably say that every woman has the choice against motherhood. But this neglects the minute male involvement in creating life, and raises the infinitely complex issue of sexuality, which isn't easily (if at all possible) explained by reason and logical considerations. You say the question is: "since virtually every situation in life carries some dangers, which ones are dangerous enough that I'm willing to sacrifice some of my freedom in order to protect against the danger?" If we assert the general meaningless of life, but retain the ability for personal meaning within this context, we could of course all sit down and decide the solution (again: restrained solution because adhering only to the male standard of values and worth) to the problem is the asexual option. Indeed then we could adopt a gender-neutral concept of individualism. And while we cynically ponder upon the approximate time the last human will be crawling upon the face of the earth, we will be ! content - because what happens beside us, or in this example, after and beyond us, holds no personal relevance.
====================================
Corbett replies;
Sigrid, I think something is oddly missing here. You are back to the notion of social thinking and wanting to make social structural plans which we should all accept.
This is simply nothing to do with individualism. The individualist would say: Look, I most likely don't have the power to fully resist every social rule (law) or custom. Some of them (laws or customs) I may actually like, affirm and want in my own value system. Others I would want to resist, but may not have the power to get away with it. Other things I can by going my separate way, if I'm willing to pay the price socially.
If I am a member of a specially limited class of person in some area (and woman clearly are in huge areas of social life), then I may have a harder time resisting that one who is not in such a class.
I don't know what the rest of it has to do with individualism. I think we are simply back to the "framework" questions.
I wanted to be a father. I didn't give a hang about what society thought about me or what it's reaction would be. Thus "custom" had little hold on me. Law did. I didn't want my children to be terribly disadvantaged and thus "marriage" was useful since "bastards" can be legally disadvantaged. Given I couldn't change those laws, and certainly not before I wanted to begin having my children, I had to weigh:
My analysis was that I couldn't win that one, that my choice was thus:
I conformed.
However, I then had a INTERNAL notion of how I perceived "a good father" to be. This was mine, and little could hold me back from living that way. Nothing of my particular choice was ANTI-social, much of it even conformed with the social IDEAL itself. It turned out later on that some of it conflicted with the law (children working when under aged), but I learned how to get away with that violation of the law.
I could have had a phenomenal conflict had my former wife and mother of the 7 children we had, were to have had a different view of what a father should be. But, we were in general agreement, and ironed out our differences when they came without radical conflict to either's individualism.
Had my views of fathering been so radically opposed to society's notions, then I would have had an entirely different problematic. Suppose it were. Then I might have had my choices go like this:
Option 1:
Judgment: I can't change society in time for me.
Decision: either:
Option 2: (not exclusive of option 1)
That is what I think individualism is all about. That pattern of choosing seems to me to be there for virtually every person in every choice he or she faces.
You seem to maintain that the individual is powerless unless he or she "gets his or her way" with the social institutions.
I think it is precisely those individuals whose individual values (consciously chosen wants) conflict with social rules and social taboos, who BECOME individuals in the process of dealing with the hardship of knowing how to live that conflict between personal values and social values.
Thus I can't see where you see the individualist in disagreement with you. And least not the kind of individualist I have just described. Can you give me any concrete cases?
=========================================
You write:
If there is such a thing as 'the human condition' to which degree does individualism-run- amok try to eliminate it and replace it with a restraint definition of self, that pays little to no tribute to human relations?
=========================================
Corbett replies:
Again, I gave the individualist reply above: It depends on what the PARTICULAR individual values at this moment and in this case.
One may say: hell with it and conform; hell with it and go outlaw, but let the structure be. One may say: I want to work toward changing or lessening that structure. Or, I will at least speak out against this structure.
The individual has NO OBLIGATIONS TO ANYTHING other than what the individualist chooses and he or she may choose anything he or she wishes.
I would limit this in one CRITICAL MATTER.
The individualist I speak of, the sort that makes sense to me, is the individualist who arrives at both his or her ANALYSIS of the situation which leads to the individualism, By:
I affirm such individuals and don't fear it.
Mindless individualism of the selfish sort that just wants what the individual wants and doesn't ask the hard questions of total view: that individualist is one I deeply fear and wouldn't affirm.
==========================================
Sigrid writes:
Hope this came across with sufficient coherence. I realize I've left some points open and didn't go into depth with everything, but so is the nature of a rambling thought. I've only recently read myself into a bit of feminist theory, and the complexity and scope of its arguments I have most definitely not done justice to here. I have the need to assert that which I have gathered though in public forums, as it appears to me that feminist theory is still something predominantly read by women, and the logical and legitimate grounds on which this form of criticism is based, escapes a great part of the thinking world. Who of the distinguished gentlemen will reply? (-: Sigrid
July 11th, 2001
==========================================
Corbett replies:
Sigrid, no doubt BOTH of us have left lots out, forgotten things we might have said, will learn things in the future we will have wished we could have said. That's the importance of having ON-GOING dialogue in which we can grow in admitting mistakes and gaps, adding new and relevant thought, discovering new facts and sources and so on.
Let's just go forward from here. Bob Corbett
Bob Corbett corbetre@webster.edu
| HOME | FORUM |