For Monday, I'd like to offer the following suggestion: we need to shift the conversation so that instead of talking about patriarchal people, we should instead focus on patriarchal actions. Activists and passionate people on both sides of the ideological spectrum have a strong tendency to demonize the people that disagree with them; I've certainly been guilty of this at times. The accumulation of left-leaning publications that label Trump and his supporters as racists, sexists, xenophobes, etc. are a perfect example of this tendency. On the flip side, Senator Cruz's statement about people from New York and their "New York Values" is a poignant demonstration of the same phenomenon from the right.
Never Beyond Salvation
The first reason that I think such a shift is absolutely essential if one actually cares about creating change in the long term is that when you attribute a characteristic to a person, it encourages a fixed mindset. To say that someone is sexist implies that the characteristic is attached to them, perhaps connected to their identity, and it doesn't offer or invite any strategies to reduce sexism. For people interested in fighting sexism, applying that label to other people sets up a battle for cultural control; one takes for granted that the enemy will always be the enemy, and the struggle to create change becomes a violent conflict where the only possible successful resolution involves conquering the enemy, either by removing them from positions of social influence or by eliminating them from society.
Long story short, if we always see "patriarchal" as an adjective that describes a person or persons, and we want society to be less patriarchal, the only option left is to do everything we can to destroy the power/prestige/life of said patriarchal persons.
I, for one, cannot get on board for this vision of change, both because I think it's a losing strategy (see below), and also because I don't think anyone's identity is fixed for all time. Identity is a complex interaction of genetics and experiences, and I would venture to say that pretty much everyone has experienced an evolution of their own identity in certain ways over time. I don't believe any bad person is truly beyond saving, and that requires a different perspective. The logic of elimination that calls us to destroy those who disagree with us, that methodology grows from fascist, totalitarian roots, and I think it's fundamentally incompatible with the anti-patriarchal society I would like to see.
Deepening the Trenches
The second reason I think we should learn to understand "patriarchal" exclusively as an adverb that describes actions rather than people is that attacks on identity do not encourage offenders to change. It's a fundamental psychological experience that we've probably all shared: when you feel like someone is attacking you, you become defensive, angry, reactionary. You might double-down on the behavior that offended the other person in the first place, because you have been de-valued, and the natural reaction to such an experience is to aggressively protect yourself.
On the other hand, if someone's actions are critiqued, it doesn't necessarily trace back to that person's essential self. We can feel guilty about our actions without being ashamed of ourselves as people, and that makes all the difference. A critique of particular actions feels like the way forward to me both because it's more likely to prompt a meaningful discussion, AND it provides a template for change. If a person understands a particular action to be bad, the solution is simple: don't do that thing anymore. If enough people change enough individual actions and choices, then all of the sudden the world becomes a different place.
No comments:
Post a Comment