Over at PJ Media, Tom Knighton has an article on this topic, Colleges Ramp Up Assault on Masculinity for Spring Semester. He offers some details and links to attempts at colleges to tear down the old masculinity and build a new one. Here is one such:
Duke University’s “Men’s Project,” meanwhile, is looking for applicants for a “nine-week long discussion group” that will also “examine the ways we present -- or don’t present -- our masculinities, so we can better understand how masculinity exists on our campus -- often in toxic ways -- and begin the work of unlearning violence.”“We want to explore, dissect, and construct an intersectional understanding of masculinity and maleness, as well as to create destabilized spaces for those with privilege,” a description of the program explains. “Duke is an environment where some are rarely made uncomfortable while others are made to bear the weight of their identities on a daily basis -- we aim to flip that paradigm.”
"destabilized spaces for those with privilege" -- there's an Orwellian euphemism for you. I wonder if it will be held in room 101.
40 comments:
The pussification downshifts for the steep climb up the hill of insanity.
It is probably a good time to go buy a non stick axe.
OK, let's start with a question:
"Do you believe there are expressions of masculinity/femininity that are toxic?"
I do, absolutely. I can easily describe behavior I would describe as stereotypically female and toxic (even though men do all of these things!):
*manipulative
*passive aggressive
*devious/two faced
*using sex as a weapon or to gain power over others
*playing the victim
I can easily describe behavior I would describe as stereotypically male and toxic:
*aggressive
*bullying
*boorishness (glorying in not feeling shame, no matter what)
*using physical strength or sheer nastiness as a weapon or to gain power over others
*acting like a tinpot dictator
So I'm not sure the problem here is that we can't think of displays of masculine/feminine behavior that are harmful.
I suspect it's more that we're not seeing any classes on toxic femininity.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that senseless violence is a real problem, for instance, among young black men or gangs. We see this behavior to a lesser extent with girls, but they exhibit other bad behavior (promiscuity, cat fights over men/status, etc.)
I also think male behavior is more "up front", open, and notorious.
2nd question: how is opposing "toxic" masculinity different from opposing "radical" Islam (which in many ways seems to me like toxic masculinity/masculinity run amok)?
I see the imbalance, so you don't need to convince me it exists. And I'm also very aware that some of these so-called academic exercises lead to condemining acceptable behaviors by association. But this seems more than a bit like exactly the phenom I was mentioning on the other thread (we are being encouraged to defend something I'm not sure we actually value, merely b/c we dislike/distrust the authors and rightly wish to defend *real* - as opposed to toxic or excessive - masculinity).
Would you object to a similar course on toxic femininity? Why or why not?
Oh - I meant to say before the toxic masculinity bullets that I know women who do all of these things as well.
Add on the female side:
gossip/sh** stirring
And on the male side:
going around looking for fights
Cassandra - the ultimate problem I see with most of these heretic burning exercises (because that's what they are fundamentally) is that they ascribe toxicity to a 'state of being'. The lists you have provided are examples of specific human behaviors (as you note, not exclusively male or female) that have specific anti-social consequences when they are permitted. I can pretty much guarantee that the Duke's "Men's Project" will not be focusing on channeling any of the predominately male behaviors you identify into socially useful functions but will instead focus, as the description states, on the proclaiming that the state of being 'male' is toxic, root and branch.
They don't call it "toxic femininity," but colleges are loaded with courses for women on what's wrong with their expression of femininity. However, what they find problematic is a different list:
* Accepting a life in which your male partner's interests might in any way constrain your own.
* Accepting a society in which a child, especially an unborn child, in any way is thought to impose unavoidable duties on his or her mother.
* Accepting that your own desires are valid if they point towards disfavored career paths, or worse still, toward homemaking.
* Accepting that it's OK to like men of a traditional stripe, and to want to form a relationship of a traditional stripe with one of them.
* Etc.
So don't think they don't try to teach girls to avoid many aspects of their "femininity" as if they were toxic. They just use different words for this part of the training.
Cassandra - the ultimate problem I see with most of these heretic burning exercises (because that's what they are fundamentally) is that they ascribe toxicity to a 'state of being'.
That may well be the case, but the interesting (to me at least!) aspect of this is that, as with the whole debate over using the term "radical Islam" is that different people hear different things when these terms are used.
I hear a qualifier ("radical"), the mere existence and deliberate use of which suggests that not all Islam is radical - otherwise, you don't need the qualifier! Whether that's true or not, YMMV, but that's the rebuttal.
Liberals make the same argument you're making ("That's just a backdoor way of saying *all* Islam is radical!"). Or, in your formulation, "What you really mean to suggest is that all masculinity is toxic!").
I might actually agree with you that that's what they are suggesting - I wouldn't know without reviewing the course materials. I am very open to the question: why no classes on toxic femininity? It's a valid question.
Some answers might be:
1. B/c females have no power, toxic femininity isn't as big a problem. I think that's both untrue and asinine, FWIW :p
2. Females are easier to control, so we don't need a class about this b/c it's not that serious a problem.
Personally, I don't think we need a course on toxic masculinity either. We need cultural mores that teach people of all 987,654,321 sexes and orientations and plumbing styles not to act like big jerks :p
But then I wouldn't take a womens' or mens' studies course, either.
Re:
* Accepting a life in which your male partner's interests might in any way constrain your own.
* Accepting a society in which a child, especially an unborn child, in any way is thought to impose unavoidable duties on his or her mother.
* Accepting that your own desires are valid if they point towards disfavored career paths, or worse still, toward homemaking.
* Accepting that it's OK to like men of a traditional stripe, and to want to form a relationship of a traditional stripe with one of them.
*********************
Grim, I'd be pumping my fist a lot harder if I hadn't seen so many men in my youth (and even now, on the Internet) who don't seem to believe they have any duty whatsoever to their own offspring. Faithless, feckless parents of any sex are people who merit nothing but contempt. There are too many morons out there who think they're scoring points on feminists or Teh Patriarchy by taking out their frustrations on helpless children. No sympathy for them or their transparently specious sophistry.
You may be right, and I'd be interested in seeing the textbooks that teach these things (just like I'd be interested in the textbooks on so-called toxic masculinity). What bothers me about a lot of these discussions is they wind up being about some pundit's third party opinions of courses they haven't examined or taken, textbooks they haven't read, lectures they haven't heard, or discussions they haven't participated in.
FWIW, I am NOT saying these things don't happen. I spent years ridiculing examples of them myself. Let's take this one (for instance) - from the link:
The collective socialization of boys and men intersects with and can have a direct correlation to violence as beliefs and behaviors are taught and reinforced throughout this life-long process (view women as objects and the property of men, gender is a binary and absolute, real men are dominating, fearless, emotionless and strong).
This workshop will attempt to introduce participants to “The Manbox” that illustrates the accepted expectations and limitations of masculinity, briefly examine hegemonic masculinity and its role as the wheel that rotates a cycle of violence, and empower willing individuals to begin to recognize, acknowledge, own, and disrupt the toxicity of manhood in order to end violence (i.e. sexual violence, domestic violence, bullying, sexism, and etc).
I don't know any men here at the Hall who endorse sexual violence, domestic violence, bullying, real sexism (as opposed to the constant accusations of it, often thinly sourced). But there are communities where men really do engage in those behaviors.
My son the evil cop is now a detective who works with sexual assault and domestic violence, and those are real women and children being preyed upon and failed by a VERY dysfunctional notion of what it means to act like a man. These are men whose fathers have failed them (and their mothers have failed them, too). The thing is, I'm pretty sure I oppose sexual and domestic violence across the board. No matter who agrees with me!
The Duke Men's Project, on the otter heiny, sounds to me like a load of unreconstructed BS for self-loathing pajama boyz :p So there, after having read the description, I'm with Christopher all the way.
Speaking of "intersectionality" - part of the error I'm trying to avoid is being so inclined to defend men and masculinity that I end up criticizing the black community for trying to deal with the very real problem of messed up families, out of control young men who prey on the weak and father children they wind up either ignoring or actively abusing, etc.
So much of this academic speak sounds like utter BS (or, as Raven so trenchantly called it, pussification) to me. But at least some of these problems are real. Not sure a university is the place to solve them (seems like churches would be more effective).
This is it right here:
"the ultimate problem I see with most of these heretic burning exercises (because that's what they are fundamentally) is that they ascribe toxicity to a 'state of being'."- Christopher B.
I'd love to sell T-shirts with "So masculine I'm toxic" on them at that campus. I bet they'd sell too- until they got banned.
The problem is that they always want to shift from the issue being control over oneself to some aspect of nature. The problem with men isn't that they're masculine, it's that not all of them know how to control themselves. The most masculine of men who also has self control is not a problem, but the most pathetic pajama boy who has no self control will be a problem. As Cass pointed out, women also have that problem, as do all the other genders I'm sure (among other issues). But with them, it's always some outside force, not that darkness within us with which we must always battle.
The problems are real. But the solutions have nothing to do with the problems. Thier "problems" are not our problems.
We see places where individuals are polluting male honor by using their strength to hurt the innocent. We want them to change thier actions.
They see an entrenched system of male patriarchy in which All male values and strengths are evil. They want to break the system.
So naturally the "solutions" (is that a male evil, always wanting to fix things?) will be different.
Cass:
You're well aware of my stance on the subject of the duties of fatherhood. I was simply challenging you on the idea that there aren't classes on "toxic femininity." You seem to be suggesting that the objection to classes on "toxic masculinity" is one of unfairness -- i.e., men are being told how to behave by the school, but not women.
I don't think that's right. I think the objection is to indoctrination. Men and women are both being taught how to believe that there are traditional expressions of their '-inity' that are problematic. Only masculinity is called "toxic" by name, but there are indoctrination courses for women too. Indeed, there are whole departments devoted to the subject, whereas this is a one-off course for men.
On the subject of sexual and domestic violence, the reason your son is involved in it is that we already have positive laws against it (laws that, with rare exceptions like the Violence Against Women Act, make it illegal for either sex). So it isn't as if we, as a society, don't agree that there are negative expressions that should be barred. We bar them by law, and punish them at law. There is widespread agreement, sufficient to ensure that this kind of legislation exists in every state. Whatever the objection is, then, it can't be that sexual or domestic violence is OK or justified.
But with them, it's always some outside force, not that darkness within us with which we must always battle.
Bingo. Society "causes" individuals to behave badly. It's never their fault, and if we could only fix society, people would straighten up and act right.
*rolling eyes*
Grim:
I suppose I'm confused because when I was actually forced to take a class on women's and other studies in college, I wasn't actually taught that any of the things you cite were problems... so long as they reflected what the woman genuinely wanted. What I *was* taught was that it was "unfair" that women face different tradeoffs than men (I don't agree - it's just reality). And that in some cases, men didn't want women to have more choices (a statement I find hard to disagree with, given that I've seen pundits like James Taranto actually argue that we need to limit women's choices for their own good and for the good of men).
It's a weak argument, and I don't think it's widely shared. But it's what I heard over and over growing up.
My textbook was just this side of insane, but the things you are saying are being taught... aren't, in my limited experience. Which, by the way, includes my extremely liberal DIL (who actually *does* teach some of these courses, and who is n ardent feminist on her second round of maternity leave so she can assume primary care of a new infant - hardly a brainwashed feminist who disdains marriage, men, or motherhood) discussing with me what is taught in her classes.
What you're telling me doesn't match my experience or what my DIL - an actual liberal feminist professor (also wonderful, caring wife and mother) - teaches. You can imagine my confusion.
So, as I say, I would be interested in seeing the textbooks and course material that tell women that it is unacceptable to want to be wives and homemakers and mothers. If that is the case, I'd have a problem with that. The problem here, though, is all I've seen is people *telling me* (on what basis, I can't discern) that this is so.
Likewise with the so-called toxic masculinity courses, so far I've only heard allegations that men are being taught that traditional masculinity is wrong. And you may be correct - it's just that I have no evidence of this, except various people's suspicions and opinions.
Finally, on this:
....it isn't as if we, as a society, don't agree that there are negative expressions that should be barred. We bar them by law, and punish them at law. There is widespread agreement, sufficient to ensure that this kind of legislation exists in every state. Whatever the objection is, then, it can't be that sexual or domestic violence is OK or justified.
Cop killing is also illegal everywhere. But it's also glorified in rap songs, as is rape, treating women like objects, etc. Calling women hoes and bit**es is also ubiquitous and celebrated as manly. No one I know talks that way - it would earn them a punch right in the mouth! But in fact, we do NOT all agree that those things are wrong. Just as we don't even all agree killing cops is wrong. Or putting artwork in the Capitol depicting cops as pigs. There are cultures in America (I can think of 2 right off the top of my head) where quite a few folks don't agree that these things aren't valid expressions of manhood.
I suspect we're mostly arguing around the edges (b/c I'm playing Devil's advocate).
Do you believe there are expressions of masculinity/femininity that are toxic?
Yes.
For example, President Obama displays toxic femininity all the time.
-Mississippi
Well, I don't have a daughter in law, but I do know quite a few feminist philosophers (who teach womens' studies courses in addition to other courses). I'm not aware of any of them who use textbooks, though; few philosophy courses prefer textbooks to primary sources. What I find is that they are themselves uncomfortable with the bias against motherhood -- not an absolute bias against it in all circumstances, but a clear suggestion that there is an incumbent duty to careerism even if motherly duties suffer.
It's one of several things they aren't really free to say in the confines of the discipline, not even to each other, but that they can express to me in certain contexts. Is it wrong for me, I've been asked, to want to do nothing but be a mother to these children? Of course it's not wrong; but if they did just that, they'd feel terribly guilty and fear they would be regarded as failures or sell-outs by their compatriots.
Cop killing is also illegal everywhere. But... in fact, we do NOT all agree that those things are wrong.
Well, and I didn't say that we "all" agreed that they were wrong. I said there was "widespread agreement, sufficient" to ensure that there were positive laws in every state -- from the most liberal to the most conservative.
Unanimity of consensus is a very high standard to ask on any question. Even a constitutional amendment only requires 3/4ths consent from specified representatives. Still, at a time when we as a society do not agree on many basic questions of morality, this is one point on which there is more than adequate agreement to ensure uniformity in the law in all American jurisdictions.
For example, President Obama displays toxic femininity all the time.
OK, that was awesome :)
Seriously, he's an odd mix. The trash talking and brash arrogance come across as more male than female but he's definitely in touch with his feminine side (and not in a good way).
What I find is that they are themselves uncomfortable with the bias against motherhood -- not an absolute bias against it in all circumstances, but a clear suggestion that there is an incumbent duty to careerism even if motherly duties suffer.
Ummm... I'm pretty sure that's called juggling work-life responsibilities. It would be weird if women who have children did NOT feel that way, given that taking good care of your kids means missing work sometimes. That's why I did not work when my kids were off school. The one time I tried to, it was very uncomfortable.
My husband never, ever took off work even once because our kids were sick. I didn't have a problem with that, but if he had done so, it would have been looked down upon because (duh...) he's a man and where the heck is your wife?
Women who do nothing but work are also judged harshly by other women - if you're thinking that pressure only goes one way (or is the creation of feminism), you are sadly mistaken. I saw full time mothers and wives criticize working wives and mothers for decades when I was a SAHWM. Things often look different from the inside.
I mention textbooks because my DIL is (in addition to teaching) a textbook author. So I'm pretty sure they're used, but at any rate I did say at some point, "textbooks and course materials", which I think covers readings.
People are exposed to all sorts of ideas in college - that's really kind of the whole point. And the ideas don't all neatly align with each other. People are free to agree or not.
What I'm remarking on is that you seem to believe that these ideas are being taught as though they were unassailable mathematical formulas or natural laws. I am sure that people in women's studies (hardly the majority of students) encounter more than their share of feminist ideas that you and I would both disagree with. I'm pretty sure the average student encounters them too, but to a far lesser degree.
The vast majority of classes I took afforded no place for a professor to tell me how I should behave (and in fact, I was never told or even had it suggested to me what I should do or want as a woman). Social sciences majors and philosophy majors may see more of this, but then they also probably see lots of other ideas too.
I have little patience for social justice warriors. As a matter of fact, I'm just re-reading Sowell's book on social justice and his Knowledge and Decisions.
Formal teachings are one thing. Social and professional pressure are another. As I mentioned before SAH Moms were one of the most unbelievably judgmental social groups I've ever encountered - they criticized each other about everything - not using the right products, not raising their kids the right way, not joining the right playgroups, little Johnny's not being potty trained by 6 months of age... no issue was too small and few women I knew didn't care what the others thought about them.
This is part of being human, and I think we need to be a little careful about overinterpreting what sound to me like normal human frictions and fears that come with the territory. Especially for women, who are famed for constantly wondering, "Am I a Wendy, or a Peter Pan? A Scarlett, or a Melanie?"
That's kind of what we do, and we're different from men that way.
What I'm remarking on is that you seem to believe that these ideas are being taught as though they were unassailable mathematical formulas or natural laws.
Surely not. What I think they're being taught as is systematic ideas on a roughly Marxist model: the whole field of "studies" operates on a similar dialectical analysis of history into competing classes (economic classes, for true Marxists; but 'classes' by analogy to sex or race, for other sorts). Since it's a systematic mode of analysis, the specific material is not important: once you learn the system, you can apply it to anything at all and come to the approved conclusions. (Indeed, just as Marxists do with any set of economic facts.)
In any case, the University of Georgia's Institute for Women's Studies section publishes all its syllabi on their website.
By the way, that's not my personal opinion -- it's the history of the development of these 'critical studies' fields.
OK, let me circle back to my original questions. I asked if you all would have a problem with classes on toxic femininity.
Grim responded that there *are* colleges are "loaded with" classes that brand traditional femininity as toxic. I responded that there may be some, but I haven't seen them. I haven't yet seen any real evidence that this is in fact what's being taught, even in Women's Studies (a fringe major), but I'll be happy to accept any evidence that I am wrong. Nor have I seen evidence that colleges are "loaded with" these courses. I'm sure there are some, because Cornell West exists and he's not alone. But "loaded with"? What percentage of students ever take a womens' studies class, anyway? I don't know the answer.
Christopher B, I think, basically argued that he thinks the subtext of these classes is that males, by virtue of being male, are toxic (not that certain behaviors commonly associated with some subset of males are toxic). If I saw that going on, I would oppose it, and frankly the Duke Men's Project mentioned in the original post sounds like that kind of class. One of the others sounded more focused on violence against women and children and peers, which is a real problem (albeit unlikely to be solved by academicians talking about it). I don't find such talk objectionable on its face, though.
Douglas pointed out that the real problem is lack of self control, not masculinity or femininity. I agree.
raven said (I can't say it better): We see places where individuals are polluting male honor by using their strength to hurt the innocent. We want them to change thier actions. They see an entrenched system of male patriarchy in which All male values and strengths are evil. They want to break the system. If that's what these classes are about (the Duke one sounds like it, the other one I read about didn't) then that's destructive and wrongheaded. At any rate, before we break the current system, I'd want some pretty strong assurances a better one was forthcoming :p
Just out of curiosity: how many of you know a womens' studies major? I've never met one, and I was unable to find a single stat on womens' studies major popularity (as in, it didn't make any of the lists). The only thing I found was a salary table in which they were the lowest paid major :p
Shocked face.
What percentage of students ever take a womens' studies class, anyway? I don't know the answer.
I don't know either, but I know that UGA requires a "diversity" elective of all students -- for satisfying which women's studies intro courses are an option. It may well be that many students end up exposed to the basic structure even if relatively few go on to pursue it as a major. (Psychology is the largest major.)
Just out of curiosity: how many of you know a womens' studies major?
I do, but even more people who teach it.
I am slightly mis-stating the requirement, it turns out. All undergraduate students must take a course in cultural diversity. If they are in the College of Arts & Sciences, they must additionally satisfy a multicultural requirement (defined as African American, Asian, Native American, or African studies -- an odd 'multicultural' requirement in a state with a very large African American population, for whom the course is presumably not 'multicultural' at all).
Five Women's Studies courses satisfy both requirements in a single course; several others satisfy the diversity but not the multi-culti requirement, requiring a separate course focusing on one of the approved cultures.
I have a funny , totally unwarranted gut feeling that most of the women "studied" in "women's studies" are the activist agitators, rather than the women who have actually done things- led nations, developed medicines, fomented revolutions, captained armies, built companies, etc.
Grim writes: What I think they're being taught as is systematic ideas on a roughly Marxist model.......
Grim you are correct: Feminism is a Marxist Precept. It is an attack on the family.
"Feminism" was simply another name for 'class warfare', the Marx/Lenin prescription for war on Right Order."
Dad29 explains it all, at the Link
https://dad29.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-origins-of-feminism-lenin.html
........The communist economy does away with the family. In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat there is a transition to the single production plan and collective social consumption, and the family loses its significance as an economic unit. The external economic functions of the family disappear . . . In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat the family economic unit should be recognised as being, from the point of view of the national economy, not only useless but harmful. The family economic unit involves (a) the uneconomic expenditure of products and fuel on the part of small domestic economies, and (b) unproductive labour, especially by women, in the home — and is therefore in conflict with the interest of the workers’ republic in a single economic plan and the expedient use of the labour force (including women). --Kollontai
-Mississippi
I really think gender and race/ethnicity are fascinating subjects and that, in a different setting than I am likely to actually find, I would enjoy studying them both at a graduate level. However, my experiences with them in grad school have been that in practice they are circular fields: Their premises assume their own conclusions in many cases. To me, this comes across as a form of dishonesty, but I'm not satisfied with that explanation and would have to do a lot more reading to develop a better one.
Here's one example. A professor once explained to me that it was perfectly legitimate to simply assume a white American in the mid-1800s was racist because racism was so prevalent in that culture. Hence, when it came to a court case we were reading about where a white judge ruled against a black man, although there was absolutely nothing in the documentary evidence to suggest that racism was a factor, we could simply assume that the judge's racism was indeed the real source of the ruling. There is something to that argument, but it is also pretty circular. I ran into similar assumptions in women's studies.
I think these fields are legitimate and interesting fields of inquiry, but many (not all) of the manifestations of that inquiry, the actual departments and professors and publications, seem to be harmful. That's a shame.
Part of the context of this discussion is in my previous post on the New Civics:
What Happened to Civics Education?
The relevant point here is that social engineering has gradually become more important than education in some educational settings. I don't object to an honest, open discussion or course on any topic. However, social engineering to fundamentally disrupt our common American culture and install lefty utopianism in its place is another matter entirely.
I'd be the first to agree that conventional forms of both masculinity and femininity can be toxic, and in principle I have no problem with colleges trying to teach young adults to think more clearly about them. But no good can come of any discussion that involves the word "intersectionality." They might as well rub blue mud in their navels.
I have a funny , totally unwarranted gut feeling that most of the women "studied" in "women's studies" are the activist agitators, rather than the women who have actually done things- led nations, developed medicines, fomented revolutions, captained armies, built companies, etc.
I share that feeling :p
... no good can come of any discussion that involves the word "intersectionality." They might as well rub blue mud in their navels.
OMG :) That made me laugh out loud.
Tom, I do have a limited interest in how other people experience/interpret the world around us, and I strongly suspect - in fact, I know this is true of men and women - that our experiences and the way other people treat us are at least partially influenced by mundane things like whether we're male or female, pretty/handsome or ugly, short or tall, dull or sharp witted, etc.
I agree - in principle - that there's some value in studying these things. But I also think sensitivity is too easily turned into a cudgel to beat The Other over the head with. This is where some feminist doctrine/dogma goes wrong with me. I don't *want* to be a member of a protected class that IS TOO JUST AS SMART/STRONG/CAPABLE AS MEN!!!11! It's hard to wrap one's mind around that much cognitive dissonance.
When I talk to my DIL, she says, "I want to listen to people who feel ignored". That's a noble and kind sentiment, and one I was actually taken to task by Grim for violating in 2008 in the runup to Obama winning the universe :p And he may have been right to reproach me. Subsequent events lead me to think Obama was never really on the level about improving race relations. I think he made them worse, in part for political gain and that horrifies and angers me.
And yet... I feel deeply that people of all races should work harder on an individual level to understand each other. I feel the same way about men and women - and I believe that effort must be EQUALLY shared (not men being exhorted to understand women and at least some women saying, "Who cares what men think/feel - they are privileged."
Well shoot - so are women in some respects.
So I honor my DIL's willingness to listen, while worrying more than a bit about being too open to specious arguments and guilt. But she's pretty level headed, and it's her life. When I look at her works - what she does, as opposed to what she says - they are worthy of respect and IMO, virtuous.
I really do worry that we're becoming so polarized - so angry all the time - that we're in real danger of losing sight of the need to work at preserving this fragile edifice we call, "civilization". At the same time, I find myself very angry at all the histrionics and emoting and IMO calculated tantrums.
So there you have it :p
Cass, I agree with what you're saying, and I share the same concern.
Where I think race and gender would be interesting to study is in history, e.g., how and why have different cultures developed different norms, and how have those norms affected the individuals, cultures, and broader history of those societies. For example, something that's been discussed here is how polygamy may have affected Muslim cultures, or how the idea of chivalry affected Western cultures. There's some really interesting work that could be done in that field.
However, there's little room for social activism in the work I would like to do. I wouldn't condemn anyone and may never use the term "misogyny" -- those kinds of judgments are for the reader of history, not the historian. Because of my way of doing things, I've had a few run-ins where, when my ideas did not a priori fit with gender studies orthodoxy, they were dismissed without consideration and with some display of irritation on the part of the gender studiers.
Similarly with race / ethnicity, my insistence on a solidly inductive approach means I am not willing to make claims that go beyond my evidence. I don't accept that we can just assume a priori every white American in the 1800s was racist and that their racism held a higher ideological commitment than, e.g., professionalism, a commitment to law, etc. Those are the kinds of commitments ethnic studies folks seem to demand, so I am not welcome in those departments.
Methodologically, most race/gender studies folks seem to be overwhelmingly deductive in approach. They assume racism / misogyny and then explore how it affected the people, cultures, etc., they are writing about. This is something they share with Marxist / Marxian approaches to history. I don't see any evidence that these deductive methods work, though.
Are there exceptions? I'm sure there are, and again, I am not terribly well-read in either area, so everything I'm saying here is anecdotal. But that's been my experience so far.
I am not completely opposed to deduction in history, BTW, but I think it would have to be based in biological facts, not political or moral theories.
Hm. Let me back out of that trap I set for myself. I do see a bigger role for deductive methods that just biology, but it would be for theories that were developed out of induction, and that were constantly tested by further induction as they were applied.
It's been a long time since I've needed to recall this stuff.
Racism in history: it's hilarious. Are there really people who think there are societies throughout history who have behaved in any other way whenever they had the upper hand? Show me a culture that doesn't exhibit a strong preference for insiders over outsiders. If you go back 100 years or so (and perhaps not that far), you'll be hard-pressed to find a culture that wouldn't act on this preference to engage cheerfully in the most shocking imaginable treatment of anyone in the out-group. People act like white Europeans are special in this way, instead of simply being the guys who've had the most swat in recent centuries. Do men typically act this way whenever they have the whip hand of women? Uh, yes. Women, too. Everyone. That's not to say I don't think it's a good idea for every group in power to examine its own conscience, but every group not in power might profit from the same exercise, if less urgently.
Are there really people who think there are societies throughout history who have behaved in any other way whenever they had the upper hand?
Sure. The whole Kumbaya School of History pretends that only white men ever committed atrocities. I've had students who were shocked to learn that black West Africans were the ones who primarily enslaved other black Africans and sold them to white slave traders, or who had no idea about the brutal warfare between different tribes / nations of Native Americans, or that Native Americans in the antebellum South owned slaves, or that a small percentage of free blacks in the South owned slaves, etc.
The question, though, is how we define the in and out groups. It has often not been by race but by other criteria.
One of the funniest (in a sad way) essays I ever read was written by David Horowitz - who used to be a radical leftist and is now almost just as far right. He was going around lecturing at colleges and one of the things he would talk about (in the context of racism, anti-Semitism, etc.) was just what Tom mentions -- that slavery was the norm in Africa and that most of the slaves sold to Europeans and American slave traders were captives sold by their fellow Africans.
He said students were frequently just SHOCKED to hear this! And, that slavery is still rampant in Africa today! Who knew?
Are there really people who think there are societies throughout history who have behaved in any other way whenever they had the upper hand? Show me a culture that doesn't exhibit a strong preference for insiders over outsiders. If you go back 100 years or so (and perhaps not that far), you'll be hard-pressed to find a culture that wouldn't act on this preference to engage cheerfully in the most shocking imaginable treatment of anyone in the out-group.
Amen. I read someone a while back who called far left progressives, "Human nature deniers".
Pretty apt when you think about it. They're always looking for a simple cause or fix to tendencies that are baked into us from the time we're born.
Cass, I want to come back to your comment that:
I really do worry that we're becoming so polarized - so angry all the time - that we're in real danger of losing sight of the need to work at preserving this fragile edifice we call, "civilization". At the same time, I find myself very angry at all the histrionics and emoting and IMO calculated tantrums.
I have had this experience numerous times over the last few years. I increasingly fear we are so polarized and angry that communication is becoming impossible, and yet, I am angry and polarized and want to shout at people on the opposing side. I get pretty frustrated with myself on a regular basis over this, and as much as I want to work to bridge the gap, I'm also afraid at a key moment I'll go off on a rant and make things worse.
I think I need a break.
Prediction: The inauguration of Trump will not portend that any breaks are forthcoming.
I suspect you are correct. But sometimes you disrupt the enemy's timing by unilaterally taking a break. Or that's my theory, anyway.
Post a Comment