Foucault, Femininity, and the Moderinzation of Patriarchal Power

Bartky asks a very important question near the end of her piece on feminism, "Why aren't all women feminists?" While I could sit here and attest to a never-before-seen realization of how men may actually oppress women more than we know, I find that trying to answer that question using her own argument may be a more effective use of this assignment. It should be mentioned however that I am trying to approach this entirely sexually unbiased, as I know, being male, my arguments against the feminism ideals of Bartky may come across as such. I find that the reason why more women aren't feminists, at least when this article was written, is because there was a severe lack of coherence and message in the movement itself. Bartky focuses her argument on the theories of Michel Foucault, and on Jeremy Bentham's idea of the Panopticon, a single-towered, circular prison in which the prisoners are psychologically inclined to police themselves as they always know they are being watched. When I read this statement I immediately saw where Bartky was coming from. It is not hard to imagine that women are constantly and unfairly being watched over by society and are expected to appeal to a certain set of ideals in order to be accepted, therefore learning to police themselves constantly. This being concretely conveyed, she goes on to lose her readers in an analysis of who exactly should be to blame for the existing oppression, who, in reality, is standing in the proverbial tower of the Panopticon of society. She first accuses men, which was of no surprise to me, nor was it entirely incorrect, referring to how, "a panoptical male connoisseur resides within the consciousness of most women: [where] they stand perpetually before his gaze and under his judgment." But then she backs this argument up with instances that, instead of reinforcing the position of the male in the "tower," rather enforce the ideal of the women policing themselves from inside their "cells". She gives her readers a number of examples of "self-movements" wherein women are constantly changing and criticizing their images for the sake of themselves and one-another without the direct influence of any disciplinary force outside of themselves. I find that with this in mind it seems as though the feminist movement lacked the one thing it needed most to be as successful as movements like the Civil Rights Movement were...a cohesive enemy. In being unable to place or accept any blame, be it violent or not, it seems as though the movement could not decide whether to address the oppression they believed to be instituted by men, or rather to go after their own who inadvertently "put down" the "rebellion" every time they, "[pick] up [their] tweezers or [embark] on a new diet." I suppose I may be using circular logic to a degree here but I just had a very hard time in finding any kind of direction to Bartky's arguments and accusations, which therefore leads me to answer her question of "Why aren't all women feminists," with her own answer: "If my analysis [of her article] is correct," the reason why all women aren't feminists is because, "such a feminism is incoherent."

The Port Huron Statement

It is unbelievable how elements of America's past can remain so strongly prevalent in modern day society. With my knowledge of the Civil Rights movement severely limited to Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech and Rosa Park's refusing to leave her bus seat, courtesy of my history text books, I would never before this class have known something as powerful as the Port Huron Statement ever existed. Beyond that it got the attention of fed-up white college students in the 1960s, the ideas and methodology described in it are well beyond its time. I couldn't help on more than one occasion to read what was being said not in the context of the Cold War and Civil Rights Reform, but in the context of our current push for democracy in the Middle East and our current Health Care reform debacle. It especially stuck out to me that their discussion of inadequate technology applies quite well with Facebook's current take-over of the minds and spirits of American college-age youth. "Although our own technology is destroying old and creating new forms of social organization," it states, "men still tolerate meaningless work and idleness." Facebook and their system of "groups" have, as of late, become politically anti- or pro- various issues like War, Darfur, the Economy, and so on. However, while joining one of these groups may show where you stand, I would say nearly nobody in any of those groups actually ventures off the Internet to begin to organize and make a physical difference. The initiative is there on behalf of the group's creator, but it is merely a "program without vision," and the biggest problem is, "there are few new prophets." It goes on then to accurately outline what was common amongst college students back then, and unfortunately still is today. "Almost no students value activity as citizens..." it states, "[a]ttention is being paid to social status (the quality of shirt collars, meeting people...making solid contacts for later on). But neglected generally is real intellectual status, the personal cultivation of the mind." I agree that this is still the case today despite the existence of more student-run grassroots movements, because despite the nobility of them, the majority still rest in what those involved can gain from participation versus what society can gain from their existence. Overall I find it startling how poignant this work written in the 1960s still is today, and with that realization I find it equally as frightening that if we have had 40+ years to make these changes and still haven't gotten it 100% correct, whats to say we aren't doomed to become the very thing they feared: a society viable purely for, "its quantity of rockets," and not, "its quality of life."

Leaders of Men, Woodrow Wilson

I can't help but find it interesting to see how many small elements of contradiction and irony seemed to plague the Progressive movement from both sides of opinion. Granted, these instances were neither all at once, nor were they expressed by only one member or proponent of the movement. My last blog discussed Carnegie, a staunch member of the anti-progressive movement, and his uniquely progressive ideals to solving the conflict. Now, looking at Woodrow Wilson, who stands clearly on the other precipice of this heated debate, I find a similar and equally as stark idealistic contrast. One of the main elements of the progressive movement was the idea that society as a whole operated as an organic body, each part requiring the aid of the others in order to survive and remain strong. Every part was vital, and to lose one would essentially doom the others, and this argument was made constantly in support of the government needing to regulate the economic downfalls of the period in order to save the failing middle and lower classes. In contrast, and criticism, people in support of the progressive movement would say that their opponents viewed society too much as a machine or technically body that operated in a series of independent parts, and when one part would weaken or break the machine could be repaired and then continue to work. This idea lacked compassion for the masses and therefore was decried by proponents of progressivism, yet in Wilson's essay on the qualities of a truly progressive leader, he opens with a statement that reads, "[He] need not pierce the particular secrets of individual men...The seer, whose function is imaginative interpretation, is the man of science; the leader is the mechanic." To me this says that an ineffective leader, or "seer" focuses too much time on trying to prod the thoughts of men and make a picture by which to lead on, whereas the effective leader looks to the whole and is a mechanic, which in this case would imply the whole being a machine. As previously stated, the "whole" being a machine was very much the view of the anti-progressive movement at the time, so I found it rather surprising, and startling to say the least, that one of the most well-known proponents of the progressive movement at the time, so well-known that he was writing essays on the qualities of a truly progressive leader, would even think to reference a machine for the sake of comparison.

Wealth, Andrew Carnegie

In reading "Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie I found that while he seems dead-set in knowing what it is he wants for America in terms of breeding economic prosperity, there is a certain degree of irony in the methods by which he wishes to execute said ideas. Carnegie, one of the richest men in American history, and, according to the progressive movement, one of the more notorious Robber Barons, was very steadfast in his belief that Social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics were exactly what the doctor prescribed for the survival of our country as whole. He exemplifies this, much like other wealthy aristocrats of his time, in saying that, "It is...essential for the progress of the race, that the houses of some should [have] all that is highest and best...rather than that none should be so." However the irony of it all is that, whether he acknowledges this or not, his solutions to ensuring that the rich stay rich, are rather progressive in nature as they don't necessary encourage leaving the poor to be poor. Carnegie doesn't want for the government to provide equal opportunity to all the current competing businesses, but he doesn't seem to believe it fair not to give the unsuccessful businessman a chance to better himself and try again through the aid of the successful businessman. "This is not evolution, but revolution," says Carnegie, "the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor...in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good." By encouraging his fellow millionaires to donate charitably not through mismanaged handing out of cash, but by investing in community improvement and arts improvement programs, while still alive rather than in their wills, he is essentially combating the fire of progressive regulation of business unknowingly with the fire of those same progressive ideals. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that this was unbeknownst to him as he was a brilliant businessman and this could just be him knowing exactly what it would take to find a peaceful harmony between the two ideals, but either way I did get a sense of irony out of it all.