Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘marx’

by Julia

This is a paper I recently wrote for my Sociology of Gender class here at Maryland. Limited to 5 or so pages, I had to cut out a ton of elaborations on some of these concepts, but this topic is something in which I’m super interested (and probably would have written my thesis on, had I not been applying to law school last fall). I thought it was pertinent to the topics on this blog, so yea!  (Also, it’s so much more fun to write papers with links.) I encourage comments/questions!

In the decades since the second wave feminists rallied Washington for equal rights, American women have certainly achieved great bounds in education and professional advancement relative to men. While many in society cite these measures as sufficient for deeming feminism irrelevant and unnecessary in an age of such “equality,” these economic measures of women’s equality are, in fact, continuations of patriarchal controls. The gendered institution of capitalism – which through clever marketing purports to be a liberating product of sexual revolution and empowerment – is just another means of reinforcing female subordination through social, political, and economic means. The increased position of women in the labor force is not a sign of liberation, but rather a reproduction of masculine hegemony under the guise of economic choice. The marketing of particular fashion and beauty products to women “appears to displace traditional modes of patriarchal authority” (McRobbie 2007:718), in that, through their increased earnings and prominence in the work force, women can buy products which supposedly liberate them. Capitalism in general works to subordinate one class of people to another through limited access to means of advancement. Capitalism as a gendered institution allows women to advance only to the point at which they believe they have real choice – in their spending patterns, their job options, their life plans. In reality, capitalism serves to reinforce the patriarchal ownership and control structures of society all within the false discourse of women’s liberation and economic choice.

Gendered institutions are established and advanced through a variety of social regulations. Capitalism is no different from other gendered institutions like religion, education, the media, or families. It is both constructed and regulated by formal laws, cultural practices, and discourses. This paper will focus on the latter two categories as a means of reinforcing capitalism as a gendered institution. As mentioned previously, the wide dissemination of discourses surrounding of women’s liberation and putative equality (through both job opportunities and consumerism) is, paradoxically, a means of securing gender retrenchment (McRobbie 2007). One need only look to the myriad products marketed towards women in a way which pretends to be liberating, but is really reinforcing gender stereotypes surrounding behavior, appearance, and (perhaps most important) proper roles in society.

Philosopher Nina Power writes that in this 21st century interpretation of feminism as consumerism, “the desire for emancipation starts to look like something wholly interchangeable with the desire to simply buy more things” (2009: 27-28). She continues that, “stripped of any political quality [to, perhaps, challenge or overturn the patriarchal economy], feminism becomes about as radical as a diamanté phone cover” (2009: 30). Indeed, many of the products recently marketed to women all carry the mantra of liberation – freedom from under-arm hair (Dove deodorant), menstrual cycles (Seasonale), or even pesky stomach aches (probiotic yogurt)– yet they all serve to reinforce the patriarchal domination over women’s bodies and tendencies through compulsory femininity. [1]

Consumerism for modern women is centered not only around the myth of liberation, but also is deeply intertwined with the sexualization of female consumers. McRobbie discusses the myth in great detail, but the discourse can be summarized as follows: “to secure a post-feminist gender settlement, [women must sign] a new sexual contract” (2007: 721). What McRobbie means by this is that the “supposed liberation of women comes in the form of sexualized products [while] wrapped in discourses of individualism, consumerism, and empowerment[2]” (Evans, Riley, Shankar 2010: 115). The recent trends of young girls with Playboy icons on their school supplies, middle-aged women taking pole-dancing aerobics classes, vajazzling, the compulsion to get Brazilian bikini waxes – all of these appear to be means of self-liberation, and the realization of the goals of second-wave feminism. However, these specific purchases are merely the “choices” which capitalism as a gendered institution designs for women to keep them slightly subordinated, while female consumers believe these purchases are either signs of achieving equality or means of advancing towards it. These sexualized products used by women “employ the signifiers of patriarchal and objectifying practices to produce the signified meaning of liberation, assertiveness, and power” (Evans et al. 2010: 120). These dominant consumerist discourses support the theory of social constructionism. Women’s sexuality is not fixed – it is a site of struggle – but capitalism works as a gendered institution to perpetuate the myth that a certain, hyper-sexualized type of woman is the paradigm to which all other women should aspire.

Since the 1960s and the “sexual revolution,” companies have had to work harder to convince “liberated” and working women that their products are still necessary to women’s advancement and happiness. The cultural practices of buying products are further purported to be individual choices, but they actually align with a very specific narrative of capitalist society. Women are so conditioned “to think that [their] behaviors are individual (a degree is an ‘investment,’ starting a family is a ‘personal choice’), that [they] miss the collective and historical dimensions of [their] current situation” (Power 2009: 34). Capitalism works only when certain groups (workers) are subordinated to other groups (owners). Applying an intersectional analysis, Evans et al. realize that gender discrimination is evident in capitalism, but so is racism and classism (and it has been that way since the industrialized period). Capitalist owners subordinate lower classes through their monetary prowess and alienate workers from each other through manufactured compulsions towards competition amongst themselves. It is also pertinent to recognize the power of the patriarchy in shaping how capitalism works to not only subordinate women but also to alienate them from each other and their collective voice.

In this way, capitalist corporations have created a subtle discourse within society that there is no longer any place for feminism – that women can simply work to buy themselves freedom. This is particularly dangerous because it also supports the narrative that critical thinking about one’s condition is no longer necessary. McRobbie writes that “the attribution of apparently post-feminist freedoms to women most manifest within the cultural realm […] becomes, in fact, the occasion for the undoing of feminism” (2007: 719). What goes often unconsidered in this narrative is that waged work is required for this consumed emancipation. Women have always been laborers – only recently has a percentage of their work been recognized as worthy of pay – but now, this waged labor is even less of a choice because of capitalism’s pressures to consume certain products as well as the lack of sufficient social services to allow women real choices, like parental leave. With the dominant narrative that women’s freedoms are intrinsically tied to products comes the inevitable commodification of women’s bodies.

This dangerous narrative has catastrophic consequences for the subordination of women within the economy: “The particular commodity, with whose bodily form [women] the equivalent form [the product] is thus socially identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money” (Marx 1867: 80). This compulsion to consume products in this particularly “post-feminist” and highly sexualized sense is especially challenging for those with fewer resources. There exists a feeling that one must consume in order to fit the feminine – nay, American – ideal (Hong 2006).  Those who feel that they must work just to consume these products of subordination are experiencing patriarchal capitalism on multiple levels – by purchasing sexualized products, lower-class women are experiencing a false sense of empowerment, but because they are working just to consume, they are essentially becoming the aforementioned Marxist commodities.

Post-feminist consumerism exists in a manner which creates an entire commodity culture (Jameson 1991). In this way, “culture” precludes any possibility for true gender equality – it is so saturated with the importance of capital that individual attributes are intentionally ignored. The myth of individualism and liberation intertwined with the consumption of products reinforces the power of capitalism as a gendered institution – designed by men, it is no wonder that capitalism works tirelessly to continually appease women with fun products so they will not truly question the structure of the economy which continually pays them less for equal work and which allows few choices for women outside of the household. It is difficult to tell what products capitalism will develop next to perpetuate its constructed myth of gender equality. What is certain is that, as long as capitalism exists as a major institution of the patriarchy, it will work tirelessly not only for class stratification, but also gender stratification – these are the processes through which the system survives. Touting the recent advancements of women in education and the work force is not sufficient – until sexist capitalism is no longer consumed and supported by financially successful women, it will continue to construct and reinforce a commodity culture which relies upon the subordination of the class of women.

Bibliography:

Evans, Adrienne, Sarah Riley, and Avi Shankar. 2010. “Technologies of Sexiness: Theorizing Women’s Engagement in the Sexualization of Culture.Feminism Psychology. 20:114-133.

Hong, Grace Kyungwon. 2006. The Rupture of American Capital: Women of Color, Feminism, and the Culture of Immigrant Labor. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Jameson, Fredric. 1991. Postmodernism or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. New York: Random House, Inc.

McRobbie, Angela. 2007. “Top Girls? Young Women and the Post-Feminist Social Contract.” Cultural Studies. 21:718-737.

Power, Nina. 2009. One Dimensional Woman. Winchester UK: O Books.


[1] It should also be noted that men also suffer under the gendered institution of capitalism. Nor are they immune to the sexualized consumerism of late. This paper, however, focuses on the group most targeted and damaged by gendered consumerism.

[2] And “often excluding those who are not white, heterosexual, and slim.”

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

by Julia

Today, I saw Avatar and Up in the Air. Avatar reviews abound, so I’ll focus this post on Up in the Air, directed by Jason Reitman and starring George Clooney, Jason Bateman, and Vera Farmiga. The film tells the story of Ryan Bingham (Clooney), a 40-something who travels all over the  country to fire people from their jobs. He loves traveling; in fact, all the bits we hate most – security, taking off our shoes, crappy food, recycled air – make Clooney’s character feel most at home. He prides himself on his “freedom,” as defined by not being tied down by such petty things as family, friends, or material belongings.

Enter two women: Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a recent Cornell grad with a business degree and the requisite veneer of capitalistic greed, and Alex (Farmiga), apparently Clooney’s female clone. (At one point, she characterizes herself as Clooney, “only with a vagina.”) These characters bring out different aspects of Bingham’s personality and slowly shear away his philosophy of isolation, leaving the audience “up in the air” for much of the 109 minutes as to the film’s objective.

I don’t want to disclose the entire plot, but I can say with certainty that this film exposes a lot about the modern American: our wants vs. our needs, the image we are “supposed” to give off vs. what really matters to us, and finally, our idolization of money and status over personal relationships. My favorite scene from the movie comes towards the beginning, where the recently-dumped Natalie grills her older peers on happiness, marriage, and companionship. Clooney’s character plays the role of the typical bachelor: I’m happily single, marriage is pointless, I don’t want to be accountable to anyone, (I’m immature), etc. When Alex tells Natalie that marriage isn’t everything – that companionship/a life partner is just as valuable – Natalie drops the F-bomb:

“Not to sound anti-feminist, because I really appreciate all that your generation has done for my generation, and I’m really grateful for my career, but I still feel like I can’t really be a success as a woman until I’m married.”

boom.

And how many times have women our age grappled with a similar question? We are socialized to believe that marriage is the way to define ourselves as women. Even with fantastic examples of women who “have it all” (thanks, mom!), we still find ourselves believing that until we marry, everything else we accomplish is insignificant. Similarly, I would argue, men are socialized to live it up as bachelors for as long as possible, because once you’re saddled down with a woman, well gosh, your life is over, man. Clooney’s character embodies this stereotype, just as Natalie is the typical young woman…or so we think.

Though the film got off to a slow start, and I found some inconsistencies in assigning these labels to several personalities, overall Up in the Air excels in its revelation of the ironies of human behavior. As someone tasked with firing people – arguably, one of the most heartless interactions out there – Bingham has a gift with words and conveying genuine sentiment. And for a man who vehemently opposes any sort of commitment to places or people, these connections with the unemployed are refreshing (and revealing).  Natalie’s cold, corporate demeanor is quickly shed under the unexpected guidance of Bingham, and in the end she follows her mind (and heart) to a brighter future. Alex’s character both exhibits typical “female” and “male” characterizations – perhaps the quintessential modern woman? I think not, nor do I think this is the best theme of the movie.

In addition to the potential feminist overtones of Up in the Air, what needs to be noted are the reflections on business in America after the financial crisis of 2008. Recall the film centers on characters detached from everyone, flying around the country laying people off from their jobs. Jason Bateman’s character gleefully announces that the recent financial crisis would mean over 30,000 new layoffs in the next few weeks – more business for him!! This greed at the expense of others is underlined most poignantly through interviews with the recently unemployed – played not by actors, but by actual recently unemployed Americans. Their message is clear: temporarily removed from the obligations of work, their personal connections are illuminated as by far the most important aspects of their lives. Enter my first deliberate mention of Marx:

“The realm of freedom begins only where labor determined by necessity[…] ends; the reduction of the working day  is the basic prerequisite.”

This is, after all, the silver lining to the financial crisis. Brutally awakened to the consequences of capitalism – namely, the devaluation of the personal and emotional – Americans may finally be coming to their senses. Perhaps spending more time at home and truly interacting with their wives and children will refute the myth that marriage is miserable for men. Perhaps, with both spouses working moderate hours, it would be possible for a woman to reap the benefits of individual success and spousal companionship. We’ve got a long way to go, and in no way am I refuting the importance of hard work. Nor am I suggesting that people quit their jobs immediately in order to achieve maximum happiness. I am, however, proposing that this forced shift in time (job loss) may ultimately lead to a positive shift in values – away from individualist greed and towards a more collective sense of companionship.

Verdict: movie isn’t all that great, but the message is worth some serious reflection.

On another note, go Ravens tomorrow! Serious inter-division rivalry with the Steelers as both of us fight for the AFC wild card spot. I’ll be at the beach bar with Papa Burke rocking a Flacco jerz and cheering hard.

Read Full Post »