This is my final project for Women's Studies 589: Feminisms in North America
Redistributing Responsibility
It is common practice to look at events around the world and to miss completely how they are related to our lives. Unless we perceive something as being directly related to us, we tend to ignore it. This is basic psychology, most say. We are more concerned with our fingernails than the massive injustices occurring around the world. What I find interesting is that no one seeks to question these basic tenants. It is widely assumed that philosophy has no direct bearing on a person's life, on political systems, on institutions, and the sciences. It is assumed that an individual's thoughts on how things work, their innermost beliefs, and their effects on the world have nothing to do with each other. Most philosophy nowadays has descended into a murky "you never know" stance. It has transformed from stimulating thought into debating semantics. Beginning in Freud's time, there is much talk about alienation, people's lack of purpose, mental disorders on the rise, and serious disconnect on a human level. What do all these ideas have to with each other and with this class? Is there any sufficient connection between the way we live our lives in America and what we think of the occurrences in Turkey? What about when we really do feel awful about what happens, and then have no idea what to do?
Philosophy is:
1.doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
2.the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
3.any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"
(
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/pe…)
It does not take a professional philosopher to have a philosophy. Every human being carries around some idea of how the world works, what reality's relation to them is, and what that means as far as their behavior and abilities in the world. The common trend is for people to accept the popular philosophy of their day, not unlike a fad. Over time, it seems that the second definition listed above has been dropped from discourse and every day life. The American culture has become too busy and superficial to question most anything, let alone the philosophy behind it. From nearly the beginning of human civilization, philosophy has served to determine the type of government people had, their role in society, and their relationships with each other and nature. Yet this link has over time begun to be severed, and now we are left at a point in time where people work backwards, examining politics and relationships without a contextual background. Academia remains a safe haven for critical thinking and evaluation of the deeper issues involved in life, and often leads to confusing and conflicting stories for students to absorb. Each discipline has its own philosophy now, without a larger or connected framework in which to integrate the knowledge. What ends up happening is the disconnecting of the mind from reality, of cause from effect, and situation from context.
This is the current mess we find ourselves in, where just the other day a hospital worker denied access to a 10-year-old child to join his family for an appointment because his mother was not biologically related to him. The rule of the hospital says only family members are allowed if they are under 14 years of age. Obviously this worker didn't conceive of the context. With a lack of philosophy to guide her, she made what we all refer to as a "stupid mistake". Why should these be so common nowadays? People no longer find philosophical ideas applicable to their lives.
Take for instance, the case of sex slave workers. The U.S. state department rates countries on the "work" they are doing to prevent sex trafficking and to protect women and children from being caught up in it. Somehow, they see no logical inconsistency in the fact that the countries they list as doing the most to stop human trafficking have the highest rates of sex trafficking (
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fron…). Here's a dilemma; there exists the belief that slavery is wrong, that rape and assault are wrong, and that kidnapping are wrong. There also exists the belief that women are weak, women are subordinate to men, and that men need sex. With an extensive history of male domination, rape, and the general subjugation of women-no matter the country-is it really such a shock that this is the result today? Those conflicting beliefs are not allowable in a consistent philosophy, and violate the second definition of what a philosophy is. The very basis of operating in this world requires some form of consistency. This is why we establish rules of nature, rules of law, and rules of the social sphere. The connection people miss is that all of these stem from the same source.
For a philosophy to be accepted, one of the criteria it meets is that it must be internally consistent. However, some views have managed to slip through that are logical contradictions. Logic and logical fallacies are one of the tools used to check a philosophy's premises and the conclusions they entail. The philosophy of the cops who raid brothels and send these women to be deported is not a rational one. Victor Malarek takes all of the "reasons" why nothing is being done about sex trafficking in European countries and defeats them with reason. There are many failings in simple thought: such as the view that these women knew what they were getting into, therefore they deserve it, that these women are whores and not people, that sending them home solves the problem, and other such nonsense (
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fron…). Logic began with philosophy, and a lack of it implies a lack of philosophy.
The same justifications given for the exploitation of these women are the same ones that the colonists used to justify the destruction of Native American women (Smith, 2005). These women were thought to be dirty, thought to be less than human, and the claiming of their bodies was an exercise in control. In the documentary "Sex Slaves" (
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fron…), each commentator mentions the importance of breaking down the spirit of the victim; finding those who are psychologically weak, beating one of the women/girls in front of the others, and doing whatever was necessary to destroy any defense. Another connection that is missed is that between the philosophy of the sexes and the violence and fear prevalent today. Most people generally agree that men should dominate, that women should comply, and that men and women are not equal in all ways. The only result of a system built on inequality is violence. The hierarchy is not based on merit or actual work, but on some arbitrary measure of what's important. Without a rational philosophy to guide the formation of these ideas, this is what humanity ended up with.
When it comes to transnational feminism, we encounter the same barriers. There is no underlying philosophy to unite these women and men under a common cause. Each country or group has their own ideas about what they wish to achieve. On top of this, there are the power struggles left over from decades of colonization and violence as a valid mode of dealing with others. There are the racial issues left over from the philosophy that not all humans are created equal (and that some aren't even human). That's how we ended up with situations like in "Iron Jawed Angels" (HBO, 2004), where white women demanded their equality at the expense of black women's. A pattern begins to emerge. There's the belief in original sin, there's the belief that humans are little more than glorified animals, and yet a people or an individual are dehumanized before such heinous acts are taken against them. Amon Goeth in Schindler's List (Universal Pictures, 1993) told Helen Hirsch in so many words that she wasn't human and that he beat her because she asked why he beat her.
It becomes apparent here of the hidden motive. In all of the horrible atrocities committed at any time in any point in the world, there is an unauthorized use of brute force, lying, and the dehumanization of the victim/s. What does this really say about humanity? That humans are not unnecessarily violent by nature, that a human could not treat another human in such a disparaging manner, and that it takes a denial (a lie) to go against that nature. Implicit in the denigration of women in advertising, the sexual slavery all around the world, and the lack of other kinds of work available to women is a denial of her humanity, and therefore her autonomy and freedom from force.
If Americans think that this does not affect them, they only need to look at the history and current standing of the U.S. In the Consitution, every person is guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet the draft exists even today. Although a volunteer army would be psychologically more well-off, the country finds it necessary to force young men to die in the name of freedom. One can't miss the irony in dying for your own life. Those drafted must be "male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., between the ages of 18 and 25, are required to register with Selective Service." (
http://www.military.com/Resources/…). Note that although aliens have no legal freedoms at all, and can be deported at any time, they are still able to die for the country. It does not take a critical eye to understand the philosophies at work behind the Selective Service Act. Only men are allowed, and of those, the ones who are in their "physical", not necessarily mental, prime. Men are highly valued in American culture, so what exactly does it mean that we send our "best and brightest" to die? If we value evolution in any way, what is the use in sending our bravest and strongest to be slaughtered?
There exist many backward mentalities such as this. The lives of citizens are in the government's control, so that right is undermined. When it comes to liberty, well, it's difficult to be free when your life can be taken away if you are deemed a terrorist, if you're drafted into the army, or if there is no guaranteed protection from those who want to kill you. On top of that, with the growing number of government controls, put in place for our "safety", liberty results in being able to tiptoe. The pursuit of happiness consists of the ability to run away from pain. However, the denial or rejection of one thing does not entail the gaining of another. This simple fact is ignored in human relationships as well; the idea is that someone (or a group of someones) can gain power, happiness, rights, or a better life by denying these to others or using them to get it. It hasn't worked yet, and it's insane to believe it would work now. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The laws of physics can tell us that. A specific action, a certain belief, will produce the same results over and over. That is why science is upheld as being objective.
Speaking of objective, there is one philosophy that applies directly to life, to responsibility, and to objectivity. Ayn Rand proposed Objectivism as the philosophy to serve as a ground for human relations, politics, and work. This philosophy touts rational selfishness, laissez-faire capitalism, and reason as man's highest virtue (
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageSe…). Conventional use of the world selfish is taken to mean "at the expense of others." Yet selfish can only pertain to the self. That is why it is selfish, because it affects nothing else and comes from the self. There's the saying "live and let live". This is the basis of Ayn Rand's theory. The current philosophies all assume an altruistic base. This can be summed up as "let each give to others according to his need." This has led to miserable results worldwide, through taxation, expropriation, and of course power disputes. When the government or another person is given charge over an individual's life, it then grants them arbitrary power. This is a sad product of the democratic process itself.
That comment may raise a few eyebrows. Yet consider the meaning of a democracy. It is always majority rule. It may assume the rationality of the masses, yet history has shown us that mob rule often leads to exclusion, devastation, and erasure. Democracy does not guarantee truth. If truth cannot be maintained, then justice, equality, and fairness cannot follow. A republic runs into the same problems. A representative has to choose which voices to listen to, and if every idea is to be treated as valid, only an arbitrary process or amoral process can determine which to follow. This has been rampant in history up into the modern day. Does it really make sense to blame the politicians, then, for being corrupt? Just like we cannot blame an individual man (completely) for believing that forcing a woman is the "proper" thing to do when she says no, we cannot place complete blame on the politicians who are using the system. This is why a philosophy can make or break humanity as a whole. Our relations and actions will follow the rules we set for it. Our systems will work the way they are meant to, no matter what we try to make it.
The responsibility for correcting these errors of thought lies with every individual. People blindly chose to accept whatever was told to them, and this is a violation of what it means to be human. What makes the human being unique is the capacity to reason, to affect the environment, to have a choice. If there was no such thing as free will, there would be no argument over it. There would be no reason to think that there is free will. If a stronger example is needed, we only have to look at those who "never had a chance", never had a choice, and who seem to have no mind at all. Those who feel they cannot control their lives we often label crazy. Yet how many of us actually make conscious decisions? How many times do we find ourselves buying something we don't want, listening to music we hate, or agreeing with someone we know is wrong? How many of us follow social prescriptions, even though they are not law? The majority of people will fall in line with whatever is dictated to them, and it is here the danger lies. So far, only the corrupt and contemptible have spoken to the masses, have controlled what they learn, and kept them in line with strange customs. What would happen if everyone in the world suddenly started thinking?
The human mind searches to establish patterns. This implies that we seek the reason for these patterns, that we naturally seek out laws, and that logic is an essential tool. When a human turns away from this, when they stop thinking rationally, lives are ruined. Behind every human error, crime, and discrimination lies an error in logic. The stereotypes, isms, and mistreatment of "groups" of people comes from the lack of rational thought. The mental "shortcut" of adding individuals into a "group" necessarily erases their identity and blurs them to fit a predetermined idea. When the individual is left out of the consideration, damage nearly always follows. Somewhere along the line, someone decided (or knew) that grouping people together was a powerful tool. It allowed a person (or group of individuals) to establish dictatorships, allowed them to a bodyguard, or allowed them to control the flow of ideas. Once people began to accept identities based on the groups they belonged to, they could effectively be treated the same way.
We see the results of this from the production of race (
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_Genera…), of sex (Meyerowitz, 2002), and of individual rights (any history). It is interesting to note that the film "Race: The Power of an Illusion" calls it exactly what it is. Yet these false ideas pervade every day life and make it downright difficult for people to actually be themselves. Once there are groups to belong to, there is the pressure to fit in. Normalization has been a major tool of those who were in power (Smith, 2005). The identity itself is a tool of expropriation. As we've seen in the case of the sex slaves in Turkey, they are viewed as immigrants and as prostitutes. Ayn Rand pushes it one step further, showing in "The Virtue of Selfishness" that the very government institutions and forms affect individuality (Rand, 1964). It is the assumption that humans are not intelligent, that they cannot protect themselves, and that they do not know what is best for them that a government in the forms of communism, socialism, and fascism could be applicable. This strips the individual of the ability to make decisions for themselves, and supports compulsory charity.
Yet we see in psychology that people operate best when they are given a choice. This is why compulsory draft, education, and taxes leave people feeling less than whole. The above governmental systems are based on the idea that one person can be exchanged for another, ignores individual ability, and denies self-determination. In such a system, the individual is erased, which means that sacrifices can be made. If the individual no longer matters, there can be no individual rights. Since groups are not disembodied coalitions but individuals with a common purpose or feature, they cannot benefit from rights. Ayn Rand stated a bit more eloquently that a group's rights consist of the rights of the individuals in it, therefore if they individuals have no rights the group cannot have any (Rand, 1966). We see the reverse in effect today, as nations and corporations have relatively unlimited freedom or power and the individual is dragged along. We are literally called HUMAN RESOURCES. A McDonald's commercial cheerily says, "The most important part of a Happy Meal is you."
Let's examine that more closely. We have the human being equated with a resource, which implies that they can be disposed of however the employer wishes. This is how the pimps in Europe view the women they traffick, as human resources. The statement McDonald's makes is a ploy to make the consumer feel good. This is why language is important. We all know what these words mean, but as Ayn Rand noticed, context has been separated from language (Rand, 1964). People use the words, but since thinking is no longer a virtue, they are "free" not to understand or grasp the weight of their pronouncements. McDonald's has reduced the human being to a side item in a meal. This is the current evaluation of humanity. Think again about whether or not philosophy is integral to life or not.
Considering the transnational feminist movement, one begins to understand why there are such problems working across borders and groups. However, each does list some form of autonomy as worthy of fighting for. Infighting revolves around the details of each situation, yet Objectivism would display the common problem underneath. If everyone shared the same basic tenets of reality, of humanity, and of their relationship to each other, then differences would be put where they belong, back to the individual. There would be no excuse for encroaching on another, for dictating someone else's life, or for taking credit for another's work. If an individual-based society (like American was founded for but has yet to practice) was the ground for human connection, it would automatically follow that each is allowed to do what they are best at. People fall along a continuum, so there is no worry about lack of jobs or abilities. When people believe in themselves, in their individuality, there grows the desire to better themselves, a motive for integrity, and ability to put forward their best. We live in a time of mediocrity, of government-proscribed minimums. Is it any wonder that we do not jump at the chance to ally with the millions of trafficked women from all countries, that we argue about right and wrong instead of truth, that we seek to sacrifice and use the people around us instead of building connections?
Transnational feminism will fail if philosophy is not taken into account. The current view that some can be sacrificed for the good of all has wreaked havoc on human relations for centuries. In order to effect lasting change, the very root must be dug up. That is how deep we have let our corruption run. Cutting off a few dead leaves will not save a poisoned plant. We cannot expect to lift ourselves up if we believe we are the scum of the universe, the masters of each other, or powerless in a malevolent universe. Languages we can learn, barriers we can cross, yet understanding can only be reached with a truly common base. We must start at the assumption of humanity, and logically branch out from there if there is to be any hope of equality for all, cognizant of but not hampered by individuality.
Sources:
1.Times-Mirror Co. "Introducing Objectivism".
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageSe…. 1962. accessed 6/08/2009
2.Iron Jawed Angels. HBO. 2004
3.Race: The Power of an Illusion.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_Genera…. accessed 6/08/2009
4.Spielberg, Stephen. Schindler's List. Universal Pictures. 1993
5.Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. Signet. 1964
6.Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Signet. 1966
7.Smith, Andrea. "Chapter 1 Sexual Violence as a Tool of Genocide". Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide. South End Press. 2005
8.Malarek, Victor. "Interview Victor Malarek". Frontline: Sex Slaves.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fron…. accessed 6/08/2009
9.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/pe…. accessed 6/08/2009
10.
http://www.military.com/Resources/…. accessed 6/08/2009
11.Meyerowitz, Joanne. How Sex Changed. Harvard University Press. 2002
