Postmodern critiques and the nature of power.
I found myself rather irritated in a class today where we discussed the categories of standpoints women have, and the intersectionality of other minority groups within women based on a text we’ve been reading. The problem I had with this book to begin with we’ve been reading is that it’s a feminist inquiry book where the author points out three different feminist perspectives, which are feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, and feminist post modernism. The author takes the stance of standpoint theory, but I believe she completely butchers standpoint theory. I researched these theories outside of the text and standpoint theory has its root in a Marxist concept where the dominant group of bourgeoisie can only see the surface of what those in the working class experience. The working class participants each experience life as a proletariat from the standpoint of one, but they don’t recognize themselves as a group. It’s not till they realize they’re experiencing the same standpoint as a class that they can unify and overthrow the bourgeoisie. The postmodern assault on this when applied to feminism is that women from different parts of the world don’t all share the same female values like the working class does in capitalism, so they can’t unify under the same banner of women’s rights the way workers can. First world women seek the means of sexual reproductive rights as a standpoint for their belief. They should therefore have a choice over the legality of reproduction rights because they own the sexual means of reproduction. Third world women are more focused on equality in wealth and to get out of poverty. Women of color are more focused on being equal in race as well as sex if not more, and the list goes on. I point this out to the professor and he makes the claim that they’re all arguing from their standpoints and that’s how she applies standpoint theory. If that’s the case she’s butchering standpoint theory and post modernizing it where we’re all subjective and see things different ways and there is no one set way of seeing ourselves together. The criticism of the feminist post modernism of course is that they want to get rid of the categories of groupings we place people in, but in doing this we’d eventually come back to the enlightenment where everyone is seen as an individual and not a group with individual rights and views and so on. We didn’t discuss all this in class of course. These are just my thoughts. The only part that took place in class is where I called the author’s flaw on standpoint theory to the professor and feel he talked around my critique instead of addressing it.
This is where the class took on the debate that refers to the problem I had in particular with their stance toward categorization and power. They didn’t realize it, but they were arguing from a postmodern perspective about the issues at hand. The professor points out the different kinds of feminism we discussed, which were conservative, liberal, socialist, black, and postmodern. Everyone starts making the argument that the problem is it’s because we put people in categories based on race and gender that creates the problem in the first place, because this is what makes them different even though we’re very similar biologically. Someone even said something about the nature of putting things in categories is what creates the problem. I was all alone in my rebuttal. I said that it’s not the nature of putting things in categories that’s the problem. It’s that putting things in categories is our nature, because life is about power. There will always be in and out groups, dominant and subordinate groups, and a hierarchy that structures how we exist within society. You can look for what we have in common, but the only the way we do this is by finding what another group of people don’t have in common with us. Even if we familiarize ourselves on commonalities with those we fist saw as alien, we will only fuse with and create new outsiders. The argument that the fusion of horizons is how we can familiarize with the alien and can end prejudice falls short of the fact that it ignores that there’s always a new horizon that is alien upon the last fusion. No matter how far back we go in history there was always groups we defined ourselves with and groups we didn’t. Even Aristotle points out that the telos of a knife is the fact that it cuts, but what defines it from other knives is how well it cuts. Obviously whoever has the authority to decide one knife cuts better than another has the power over it. The knife is inanimate though, and when we can dominate others with the authority of categorizing them into what is better or worse we exert power over them within a society. It’s not till the subordinate group manages to get enough power to redefine itself that it can manage its way into the in group, but upon doing so a new out group will be created. Life is about power and although many talk around it and try to ignore it they still address it without realizing it. In the dialect between Socrates and Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, they debate what justice is, and Thrasymachus claims injustice is better because it’s what benefits the stronger. We feed sheep to fatten them up so we can eat them. We look like we’re being kind but it’s to benefit ourselves. Socrates argues that justice is to benefit the weaker, but when we benefit the weaker it’s not because it’s good in itself for the sake of it, but because we can benefit ourselves in the process. Even if both parties gain from the interaction, the fact is we don’t do anything for people unless we can get something to benefit ourselves from doing so in the process. This is a form of soft power, where we seek to get people to desire the thing we wanted them to instead of physically coercing them, which is hard power. Soft power is the way of the future, because although some may wield soft power by having the legitimate physical means to back it up, others who would appear to be on an equal playing field are still not, because in every relationship there’s a dominant and a subordinate whether we see it obviously or not. The best way to exert power over someone without them thinking you’re doing so is by giving them several options, but you always create incentives to make yours the most appealing or easiest to attain. This gives them the feeling they’re making their own choice while they tend to head in the direction you wanted them too. All interactions have a dominant and subordinate and all interactions are struggles over power. When we’re finally on equal footing it’s because we have created solidarity among ourselves as a group of one against another group, and even when our group grows large enough there will be a hierarchy in that group where some dominate others. This is our nature and nature is a power struggle. What happens when we move from physical coercion to verbal and mental is how we become “civilized”, because the ability to oppress the will through symbols and language is the newest phase in the evolution of humanity. All battles at some point in the future will be about competition on a abstract playing field of verbal and psychological coercion with the back up threat that the physical force is possible but never has to be used anymore.
I found myself rather irritated in a class today where we discussed the categories of standpoints women have, and the intersectionality of other minority groups within women based on a text we’ve been reading. The problem I had with this book to begin with we’ve been reading is that it’s a feminist inquiry book where the author points out three different feminist perspectives, which are feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, and feminist post modernism. The author takes the stance of standpoint theory, but I believe she completely butchers standpoint theory. I researched these theories outside of the text and standpoint theory has its root in a Marxist concept where the dominant group of bourgeoisie can only see the surface of what those in the working class experience. The working class participants each experience life as a proletariat from the standpoint of one, but they don’t recognize themselves as a group. It’s not till they realize they’re experiencing the same standpoint as a class that they can unify and overthrow the bourgeoisie. The postmodern assault on this when applied to feminism is that women from different parts of the world don’t all share the same female values like the working class does in capitalism, so they can’t unify under the same banner of women’s rights the way workers can. First world women seek the means of sexual reproductive rights as a standpoint for their belief. They should therefore have a choice over the legality of reproduction rights because they own the sexual means of reproduction. Third world women are more focused on equality in wealth and to get out of poverty. Women of color are more focused on being equal in race as well as sex if not more, and the list goes on. I point this out to the professor and he makes the claim that they’re all arguing from their standpoints and that’s how she applies standpoint theory. If that’s the case she’s butchering standpoint theory and post modernizing it where we’re all subjective and see things different ways and there is no one set way of seeing ourselves together. The criticism of the feminist post modernism of course is that they want to get rid of the categories of groupings we place people in, but in doing this we’d eventually come back to the enlightenment where everyone is seen as an individual and not a group with individual rights and views and so on. We didn’t discuss all this in class of course. These are just my thoughts. The only part that took place in class is where I called the author’s flaw on standpoint theory to the professor and feel he talked around my critique instead of addressing it.
This is where the class took on the debate that refers to the problem I had in particular with their stance toward categorization and power. They didn’t realize it, but they were arguing from a postmodern perspective about the issues at hand. The professor points out the different kinds of feminism we discussed, which were conservative, liberal, socialist, black, and postmodern. Everyone starts making the argument that the problem is it’s because we put people in categories based on race and gender that creates the problem in the first place, because this is what makes them different even though we’re very similar biologically. Someone even said something about the nature of putting things in categories is what creates the problem. I was all alone in my rebuttal. I said that it’s not the nature of putting things in categories that’s the problem. It’s that putting things in categories is our nature, because life is about power. There will always be in and out groups, dominant and subordinate groups, and a hierarchy that structures how we exist within society. You can look for what we have in common, but the only the way we do this is by finding what another group of people don’t have in common with us. Even if we familiarize ourselves on commonalities with those we fist saw as alien, we will only fuse with and create new outsiders. The argument that the fusion of horizons is how we can familiarize with the alien and can end prejudice falls short of the fact that it ignores that there’s always a new horizon that is alien upon the last fusion. No matter how far back we go in history there was always groups we defined ourselves with and groups we didn’t. Even Aristotle points out that the telos of a knife is the fact that it cuts, but what defines it from other knives is how well it cuts. Obviously whoever has the authority to decide one knife cuts better than another has the power over it. The knife is inanimate though, and when we can dominate others with the authority of categorizing them into what is better or worse we exert power over them within a society. It’s not till the subordinate group manages to get enough power to redefine itself that it can manage its way into the in group, but upon doing so a new out group will be created. Life is about power and although many talk around it and try to ignore it they still address it without realizing it. In the dialect between Socrates and Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, they debate what justice is, and Thrasymachus claims injustice is better because it’s what benefits the stronger. We feed sheep to fatten them up so we can eat them. We look like we’re being kind but it’s to benefit ourselves. Socrates argues that justice is to benefit the weaker, but when we benefit the weaker it’s not because it’s good in itself for the sake of it, but because we can benefit ourselves in the process. Even if both parties gain from the interaction, the fact is we don’t do anything for people unless we can get something to benefit ourselves from doing so in the process. This is a form of soft power, where we seek to get people to desire the thing we wanted them to instead of physically coercing them, which is hard power. Soft power is the way of the future, because although some may wield soft power by having the legitimate physical means to back it up, others who would appear to be on an equal playing field are still not, because in every relationship there’s a dominant and a subordinate whether we see it obviously or not. The best way to exert power over someone without them thinking you’re doing so is by giving them several options, but you always create incentives to make yours the most appealing or easiest to attain. This gives them the feeling they’re making their own choice while they tend to head in the direction you wanted them too. All interactions have a dominant and subordinate and all interactions are struggles over power. When we’re finally on equal footing it’s because we have created solidarity among ourselves as a group of one against another group, and even when our group grows large enough there will be a hierarchy in that group where some dominate others. This is our nature and nature is a power struggle. What happens when we move from physical coercion to verbal and mental is how we become “civilized”, because the ability to oppress the will through symbols and language is the newest phase in the evolution of humanity. All battles at some point in the future will be about competition on a abstract playing field of verbal and psychological coercion with the back up threat that the physical force is possible but never has to be used anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment