Log in

< back | 0 - 10 |  

(no subject)

July 15th, 2007 (09:11 pm)

EZLN and Paulo FreireCollapse )

(no subject)

July 15th, 2007 (09:04 pm)

Rhetoric and AbolitionCollapse )

cliff noted on marx by me

May 6th, 2007 (02:23 am)

Marx is still a useful tool in the boxCollapse )

(no subject)

April 7th, 2007 (12:26 am)

A Race to the Bottom: Globalization and Neoliberlisms failed ideologyCollapse )

(no subject)

March 28th, 2007 (10:58 pm)

Rousseau and Burke: Conflicting Views, Similar NostalgiaCollapse )

Machiavelli and The politics of Deception

February 20th, 2007 (07:19 pm)

Editors Note
Please note that the term republic(an) meant an entirely different thing in the 1500's than it does now. Therefore, to apply contemporary understanding will take away from getting the full historical benefit of this text. When reading keep in mind republic(an) was something against the greater status quo of monarchy. It was a system based on political participation and active citizenry. Not to say it was radical or liberatory at the time (or that it is now), just that it had a different meaning.

Now That's Machiavelli!Collapse )


Political scholarship is not required to understand what the term Machiavellian means. Such characteristics of this kind of behavior are the ability to be crafty, cunning, sneaky, two-faced, amoral- the list goes on. The satirical journalism of The Onion best describes the mainstream pejorative understanding of Machiavellianism when headlines such as: “Third-Grade Slumber Party A Snake pit Of Machiavellian Alliances” or another: “Area Applebee’s a Hotbed of Machiavellian Political Maneuvering”. A more sophisticated interpretation of Machiavellianism is the international relations theory of political realism which many of its tenets are based off of Machiavelli’s most famous text The Prince. This text constantly speaks of maintaining lo stato (the state) and holds the health and perseverance of that state as the utmost importance. Political realism or realpolitik, in brief is the guiding theory that sovereign nations do not need to act morally when it comes to maintaining the state. It’s is also thought that states will act (and should act) in their own interest in developing their economic powers and military domination over other sovereigns. A current notable that identifies as a political realist is United States National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.2 The point of drawing the pejorative and theoretical understandings of Machiavellianism is that both are placing Machiavelli out of context. This is because it is a severe mistake to just read the text of The Prince and not look into the rich historical, political, and literal background of Niccolo Machiavelli. A short and concise history of this will then help move scholars and pundits into a more in-depth discussion of Machiavelli’s politics. That can help transform him politically and hopefully change the policies that are made in his name.

Machiavelli's History
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points starts as a good basis for a quick and accurate understanding of Niccolo Machiavelli’s history. According to the Encyclopedia- Machiavelli was a native to Florence, Italy. Here he was raised to be an active citizen in the Florence republic. It is suspected that he studied humanist philosophy at the University of Florence and from there was made Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence (in modern terms- a Secretary of State) where he served under the gonfaloniere Piero Soderini. However, Machiavelli’s political participation took a turn for the worst in 1512, when the Medici family- with the aid of Spain dissolved the Florentine republic and instituted a monarchy. “Machiavelli was a direct victim of the regime change: he was initially placed in a form of internal exile and, when he was (wrongly) suspected of conspiring against the Medici in 1513, he was imprisoned and tortured for several weeks. His retirement thereafter to his farm outside of Florence afforded the occasion and the impetus for him to turn to literary pursuits.” He wrote many works- first The Prince (which was published posthumously in 1532), and then The Art of War, Ii>Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy (more commonly known as Discourses) and then The History of Florence- a text in which he was hired by the Medici family to write. However, a problem is presented when reading The Prince and Discourses- they both advocate for government systems that are mutually exclusive. On one side you have The Prince which in the “mirror of princes” tradition that discusses “what a principality is, how many types of principality there are, how one acquires them, how one holds onto them, why on loses them” (P, p.7) and then Discourses which he focuses “not [on] princes, but people whose innumerable fine qualities make them worthy to be princes. I have chose, not rulers who can reward me with titles, honors, and wealth, but private citizens who would reward me if they could” (D, p. 58).

The Machiavelli Problem and its Purposed Solutions
How can scholars resolve this problem that Machiavelli communicates in these two texts? There are a couple of ways scholars solve this puzzle. The first is that Machiavelli was an opportunist, simply concerned with getting a job and serving in politics- thus The Prince serves as a sort of job application in which Machiavelli sought in integrate himself with the new Medici ruling class. Once this attempt did not bear results, the disenchanted Machiavelli reverted back to his classical republican thought and then wrote Discourses. Another is political scientists Sheldon Wolin’s theory that The Prince seeks to give advice to Guliano Medici to restore order in the city of Florence, and thus set the stable grounds for a new republic to emerge. These theories both help explain the Machiavelli problem very well, however, another more complicated theory is proposed by political scientist Mary Dietz in her article “Trapping the Prince”, which was printed American Political Science review in 1986. The rest of this paper will focus on Dietz’s theory because it also shows that Machiavelli was a true republican that never waived in his political commitment to a republic in Florence. Dietz’s article shows that the advice in The Prince was so poor that it would have caused the Medici government to be overthrown and thus a republic would be restored. The Prince (which is Guliano Medici) is essentially trapped if he takes this advice- this being 1) where to live, 2) how to act, and 3) who to arm.

1) Where to live
In chapter 5 of The Prince, Machiavelli illustrates “How you should govern cities or kingdoms that, before you acquired them, lived under their own laws” (P, p.16). He states that a new ruler can either “lay them [the city] to waste; the second is to go live there in person, the third is to let them continue to live under their own laws, make them pay you, and create an administrative and political elite who will remain loyal to you” (P, p.16). From there he discussed the historical implications of developing an elite and states in the end, that when it comes to republics that on should destroy the city or go live in it (P, p.17). However, Machiavelli gives contradictory advice in the same chapter by stating that “He who becomes the ruler of a city that is used to living under its own laws and does not knock it down, must expect to be knocked down by it. Whenever it rebels, it will find strength in the language of liberty and will seek to restore its ancient constitution” (P, p.17). Dietz interprets this as a way to trick the prince into thinking that instead of living in a villa outside of the city (like most elite did) that living with the populous would be the best way to maintain power; even though the reality seems to be the opposite. Logic will show that tyrants living in closer quarters with their constituents are setting themselves up to be destroyed. However “our perspective is not yet complete. Machiavelli may be determined to show assure that Lorenzo’s power by offering further advice on how to neutralize the “desire for vengeance” and the love of liberty that inflame the republican hearts, so that even though the prince resides within the city, he will be secure” (Dietz, 783). The craftier and scheming tactics of Machiavelli come out more through The Prince when he suggests that the prince that lives in the city of Florence should not only be within the center of his populous, but while there he should also act cruel and tyrannical.

2) How to behave
There are many chapters in The Prince that focus on how exactly the ruler should behave. It seems that Machiavelli is stating that through cruelty and through fear the populous will learn to admire and respect their new ruler. On political problems, Machiavelli appears to be a war monger when he states “one should never allow a problem to develop in order to avoid a war” (P, p. 14). On acting in good will he states “Good will and good fortune are totally unreliable and capricious” (P, p.19). On policy and treatment he states that there should be a distinction “between cruelty well used and cruelty abused” (P, p. 25). On being liberal and generous- “a ruler cannot seek to benefit from a reputation as generous without harming himself” and that “among all things a ruler should try to avoid, he must avoid above all being hated and despised. Generosity leads to your being both” (P, 37-38). Machiavelli goes so far as to even blame (partly) the rise and fall of Caesar on his generosity by providing “bread and circuses” for his people. The question of love or fear isn’t to be entertained for Machiavelli; he simply states that it is both are optimal for a ruler (P, p. 39). Dietz argues “[W]e have evidence to suggest that Machiavelli’s warning against liberality in The Prince is more a matter of republican sympathies than helpful advice, for in The History of Florence he reveals how the Medici benefited from liberality”(Dietz, 784). The puzzle fits even better when we see that Machiavelli states that you should arm your people.

3) Who to Arm
It is in the classical republican tradition to have a distrust of standing armies, this is because their interests can lead to them serving tyrants and not protecting liberty. Throughout The Prince, it appears that Machiavelli is acting in this tradition by telling his reader that not only should there not be a standing army, but that the ruler should be arming his citizens. This is because since the populous both will love and fear their ruler, thus will defend him as well. Dietz continues in her argument “Machiavelli concludes “a new prince in a new dominion always has his subjects armed. History is full of such examples”, yet throughout The Prince he does not state what these examples are (Dietz, 785). This combination of where to live, how to behave, and who to arm- if followed- it is apparent will lead to the destruction of the prince.

Dietz offers a new refreshing argument about the contextualized version of resolving the Machiavelli problem. If this theoretical lens is used, this has some extreme implications, since The Prince, decontextualized, is used to prop up political realism. With Dietz’s frame applied to political realism, we can see that if Machiavelli and Dietz are right, political realism could possibly lead to the destruction of the sovereigns that adhere to it when developing policy- even though that very ideology is used to build power. Whether Dietz is wrong or right, political pundits should take seriously that building policy off the politics of deception can hardly be sustainable.

(no subject)

February 7th, 2007 (06:35 pm)

A New Designation for an Old ObscenityCollapse )

(no subject)

August 13th, 2006 (04:23 pm)


Understanding Patriarchy by bell hooks
by bell hooks fan Sunday July 25, 2004 at 11:27 AM

Chapter two of "The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love" by bell hooks

Patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social dis­ease assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation. Yet most men do not use the word "patriarchy" in everyday life. Most men never think about patriarchy-what it means, how it is created and sustained. Many men in our nation would not be able to spell the word or pronounce it correctly. The word "patriarchy" just is not a part of their normal everyday thought or speech. Men who have heard and know the word usually associate it with women's liber­ation, with feminism, and therefore dismiss it as irrelevant to their own experiences. I have been standing at podiums talking about patriarchy for more than thirty years. It is a word I use daily, and men who hear me use it often ask me what I mean by it.

Nothing discounts the old antifeminist projection of men as all-powerful more than their basic ignorance of a major facet of the political system that shapes and informs male identity and sense of self from birth until death. I often use the phrase "imperialist white-supremacist capi­talist patriarchy" to describe the interlocking political sys­tems that are the foundation of our nation's politics. Of these systems the one that we all learn the most about growing up is the system of patriarchy, even if we never know the word, because patriarchal gender roles -are assigned to us as children and we are given continual guid­ance about the ways we can best fulfill these roles.

Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. When my older brother and I were born with a year separating us in age, patriarchy determined how we would each be regarded by our parents. Both our parents believed in patriarchy; they had been taught patriarchal thinking through religion.

At church they had learned that God created man to rule the world and everything in it and that it was the work of women to help men perform these tasks, to obey, and to always assume a subordinate role in relation to a powerful man. They were taught that God was male. These teachings were reinforced in every institution they encountered--­schools, courthouses, clubs, sports arenas, as well as churches. Embracing patriarchal thinking, like everyone else around them, they taught it to their children because it seemed like a "natural" way to organize life.

As their daughter I was taught that it was my role to serve, to be weak, to be free from the burden of thinking, to caretake and nurture others. My brother was taught that it was his role to be served; to provide; to be strong; to think, strategize, and plan; and to refuse to caretake or nurture others. I was taught that it was not proper for a female to be violent, that it was "unnatural." My brother was taught hat his value would be determined by his will to do violence (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that for a boy, enjoying violence was a good thing (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that a boy should not express feelings. I was taught that girls could and should express feelings, or at least some of them. When I responded with rage at being denied a toy, I was taught as a girl in a patriarchal household that rage was not an appropriate feminine feeling, that it should be not only not be expressed but be eradicated. When my brother responded with rage at being denied a toy, he was taught as a boy in a patriar­chal household that his ability to express rage was good but that he had to learn the best setting to unleash his hos­tility. It was not good for him to use his rage to oppose the wishes of his parents, but later, when he grew up, he was taught that rage was permitted and that allowing rage to provoke him to violence would help him protect home and nation.

We lived in farm country, isolated from other people. Our sense of gender roles was learned from our parents, from the ways we saw them behave. My brother and I remember our confusion about gender. In reality I was stronger and more violent than my brother, which we learned quickly was bad. And he was a gentle, peaceful boy, which we learned was really bad. Although we were often confused, we knew one fact for certain: we could not be and act the way we wanted to, doing what we felt like. It was clear to us that our behavior had to follow a predetermined, gendered script. We both learned the word "patriarchy" in our adult life, when we learned that the script that had determined what we should be, the identities we should make, was based on patriarchal values and beliefs about gender.

I was always more interested in challenging patriarchy than my brother was because it was the system that was always leaving me out of things that I wanted to be part of. In our family life of the fifties, marbles were a boy's game. My brother had inherited his marbles from men in the fam­ily; he had a tin box to keep them in. All sizes and shapes, marvelously colored, they were to my eye the most beauti­ful objects. We played together with them, often with me aggressively clinging to the marble I liked best, refusing to share. When Dad was at work, our stay-at-home mom was quite content to see us playing marbles together. Yet Dad,, looking at our play from a patriarchal perspective, was dis­turbed by what he saw. His daughter, aggressive and com­petitive, was a better player than his son. His son was pas­sive; the boy did not really seem to care who won and was willing to give over marbles on demand. Dad decided that this play had to end, that both my brother and I needed to learn a lesson about appropriate gender roles.

One evening my brother was given permission by Dad to bring out the tin of marbles. I announced my desire to play and was told by my brother that "girls did not play with marbles," that it was a boy's game. This made no sense to my four- or five-year-old mind, and I insisted on my right to play by picking up marbles and shooting them. Dad inter­vened to tell me to stop. I did not listen. His voice grew louder and louder. Then suddenly he snatched me up, broke a board from our screen door, and began to beat me with it, telling me, "You're just a little girl. When I tell you to do something, I mean for you to do it." He beat me and he beat me, wanting me to acknowledge that I understood what I had done. His rage, his violence captured everyone's attention. Our family sat spellbound, rapt before the porn­ography of patriarchal violence. After this beating I was banished-forced to stay alone in the dark. Mama came into the bedroom to soothe the pain, telling me in her soft southern voice, "I tried to warn you. You need to accept that you are just a little girl and girls can't do what boys do." In service to patriarchy her task was to reinforce that Dad had done the right thing by, putting me in my place, by restor­ing the natural social order.

I remember this traumatic event so well because it was a story told again and again within our family. No one cared that the constant retelling might trigger post-traumatic stress; the retelling was necessary to reinforce both the mes­sage and the remembered state of absolute powerlessness. The recollection of this brutal whipping of a little-girl daughter by a big strong man, served as more than just a reminder to me' of my gendered place, it was a reminder to everyone watching/remembering, to all my siblings, male and female, and to our grown-woman mother that our patriarchal father was the ruler in our household. We were to remember that if we did not obey his rules, we would be punished, punished even unto death. This is the way we were experientially schooled in the art of patriarchy.

There is nothing unique or even exceptional about this experience. Listen to the voices of wounded grown children raised in patriarchal homes and you will hear different ver­sions with the same underlying theme, the use of violence to reinforce our indoctrination and acceptance of patri­archy. In How Can I Get Through to You? family therapist Terrence Real tells how his sons were initiated into patriar­chal thinking even as their parents worked to create a lov­ing home in which antipatriarchal values prevailed. He tells of how his young son Alexander enjoyed dressing as Barbie until boys playing with his older brother witnessed his Barbie persona and let him know by their gaze and their shocked, disapproving silence that his behavior was unacceptable:

Without a shred of malevolence, the stare my son received transmitted a message. You are not to do this. And the medium that message was broadcast in was a potent emotion: shame. At three, Alexander was learning the rules. A ten ­second wordless transaction was powerful enough to dissuade my son from that instant forward from what had been a favorite activity. I call such moments of induction the "normal traumatization" of boys.

To indoctrinate boys into the rules of patriarchy, we force them to feel pain and to deny their feelings.

My stories took place in the fifties; the stories Real tells are recent. They all underscore the tyranny of patriarchal thinking, the power of patriarchal culture to hold us cap­tive. Real is one of the most enlightened thinkers on the subject of patriarchal masculinity in our nation, and yet he lets readers know that he is not able to keep his boys out of patriarchy's reach. They suffer its assaults, as do all boys and girls, to a greater or lesser degree. No doubt by creating a loving home that is not patriarchal, Real at least offers his boys a choice: they can choose to be themselves or they can choose conformity with patriarchal roles. Real uses the phrase "psychological patriarchy" to describe the patriar­chal thinking common to females and males. Despite the contemporary visionary feminist thinking that makes clear that a patriarchal thinker need not be a male, most folks continue to see men as the problem of patriarchy. This is simply not the case. Women can be as wedded to patriar­chal thinking and action as men.

Psychotherapist John Bradshaw's clear-sighted defini­tion of patriarchy in Creating Love is a useful one: "The dic­tionary defines `patriarchy' as a 'social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and religious functions.. . Patriarchy is charac­terized by male domination and power. He states further that "patriarchal rules still govern most of the world's religious, school systems, and family systems." Describing the most damaging of these rules, Bradshaw lists "blind obedience-the foundation upon which patriarchy stands; the repression of all emotions except fear; the destruction of individual willpower; and the repression of thinking whenever it departs from the authority figure's way of thinking." Patriarchal thinking shapes the values of our culture. We are socialized into this system, females as well as males. Most of us learned patriarchal attitudes in our family of origin, and they were usually taught to us by our mothers. These attitudes were reinforced in schools and religious institutions.

The contemporary presence of female-headed house­holds has led many people to assume that children in these households are not learning patriarchal values because no male is present. They assume that men are the sole teachers of patriarchal thinking. Yet many female-headed households endorse and promote patriarchal thinking with far greater passion than two-parent households. Because they do not have an experiential reality to chal­lenge false fantasies of gender roles, women in such house­holds are far more likely to idealize the patriarchal male role and patriarchal men than are women who live with patriarchal men every day. We need to highlight the role women play in perpetuating and sustaining patriarchal culture so that we will recognize patriarchy as a system women and men support equally, even if men receive more rewards from that system. Dismantling and changing patriarchal culture is work that men and women must do together.

Clearly we cannot dismantle a system as long as we engage in collective denial about its impact on our lives. Patriarchy requires male dominance by any means neces­sary, hence it supports, promotes, and condones sexist vio­lence. We hear the most about sexist violence in public dis­courses about rape and abuse by domestic partners. But the most common forms of patriarchal violence are those that take place in the home between patriarchal parents and children. The point of such violence is usually to reinforce a dominator model, in which the authority figure is deemed ruler over those without power and given the right to maintain that rule through practices of subjugation, subordination, and submission.

Keeping males and females from telling the truth about what happens to them in families is one way patriarchal culture is maintained. A great majority of individuals enforce an unspoken rule in the culture as a whole that demands we keep the secrets of patriarchy, thereby protect­ing the rule of the father. This rule of silence is upheld when the culture refuses everyone easy access even to the word "patriarchy." Most children do not learn what to call this system of institutionalized gender roles, so rarely do we name it in everyday speech. This silence promotes denial. And how can we organize to challenge and change a system that cannot be named?

It is no accident that feminists began to use the word "patriarchy" to replace the more commonly used "male chauvanism" and "sexism." These courageous voices wanted men and women to become more aware of the way patri­archy affects us all. In popular culture the word itself was hardly used during the heyday of contemporary feminism. Antimale activists were no more eager than their sexist male counterparts to emphasize the system of patriarchy and the way it works. For to do so would have automatically exposed the notion that men were all-powerful and women power­less, that all men were oppressive and women always and only victims. By placing the blame for the perpetuation of sexism solely on men, these women could maintain their own allegiance to patriarchy, their own lust for power. They masked their longing to be dominators by taking on the mantle of victimhood.

Like many visionary radical feminists I challenged the misguided notion, put forward by women who were simply fed up with male exploitation and oppression, that men were "the enemy." As early as 1984 I included a chapter with the title "Men: Comrades in Struggle" in my book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center urging advocates of feminist politics to challenge any rhetoric which placed the sole blame for perpetuating patriarchy and male domination onto men:

Separatist ideology encourages women to ignore the negative impact of sexism on male personhood. It stresses polarization between the sexes. According to Joy justice, separatists believe that there are "two basic perspectives" on the issue of naming the victims of sexism: "There is the perspective that men oppress women. And there is the perspective that people are people, and we are all hurt by rigid sex roles." . . . Both perspectives accurately describe our predica­ment. Men do oppress women. People are hurt by rigid sexist role patterns, These two realities coexist. Male oppression of women cannot be excused by the recognition that there are ways men are hurt by rigid sexist roles. Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt, and work to change it-it exists. It does not erase or lessen male responsibility for supporting and perpetu­ating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emo­tional pain caused by male conformity to rigid sexist role patterns.

Throughout this essay I stressed that feminist advocates collude in the pain of men wounded by patriarchy when they falsely represent men as always and only powerful, as always and only gaining privileges from their blind obedi­ence to patriarchy. I emphasized that patriarchal ideology brainwashes men to believe that their domination of women is beneficial when it is not:

Often feminist activists affirm this logic when we should be constantly naming these acts as expressions of perverted power relations, general lack of control of one's actions, emotional pow­erlessness, extreme irrationality, and in many cases, outright insanity. Passive male absorption of sexist ideology enables men to falsely inter­pret this disturbed behavior positively. As long as men are brainwashed to equate violent domi­nation and abuse of women with privilege, they will have no understanding of the damage done to themselves or to others, and no motivation to change.

Patriarchy demands of men that they become and remain emotional cripples. Since it is a system that denies men full access to their freedom of will, it is difficult for any man of any class to rebel against patriarchy, to be disloyal to the patriarchal parent, be that parent female or male.

The man who has been my primary bond for more than twelve years was traumatized by the patriarchal dynamics in his family of origin. When I met him he was in his twen­ties. While his formative years had been spent in the com­pany of a violent, alcoholic dad, his circumstances changed when he was twelve and he began to live alone with his mother. In the early years of our relationship he talked openly about his hostility and rage toward his abusing dad. He was not interested in forgiving him or understanding the circumstances that had shaped and influenced his dad's life, either in his childhood or in his working life as a military man.

In the early years of our relationship he was extremely critical of male domination of women and children. Although he did not use the word "patriarchy," he under­stood its meaning and he opposed it. His gentle, quiet man­ner often led folks to ignore him, counting him among the weak and the powerless. By the age of thirty he began to assume a more macho persona, embracing the dominator model that he had once critiqued. Donning the mantle of patriarch, he gained greater respect and visibility. More women were drawn to him. He was noticed more in public spheres. His criticism of male domination ceased. And indeed he begin to mouth patriarchal rhetoric, saying the kind of sexist stuff that would have appalled him in the past.

These changes in his thinking and behavior were trig­gered by his desire to be accepted and affirmed in a patriar­chal workplace and rationalized by his desire to get ahead. His story is not unusual. Boys brutalized and victimized by patriarchy more often than not become patriarchal, embodying the abusive patriarchal masculinity that they once clearly recognized as evil. Few men brutally abused as boys in the name of patriarchal maleness courageously resist the brainwashing and remain true to themselves. Most males conform to patriarchy in one way or another.

Indeed, radical feminist critique of patriarchy has practi­cally been silenced in our culture. It has become a subcultural discourse available only to well-educated elites. Even in those circles, using the word "patriarchy" is regarded as passe. Often in my lectures when I use the phrase "imperial­ist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy" to describe our nation's political system, audiences laugh. No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny. The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism. It func­tions as a disclaimer, discounting the significance of what is being named. It suggests that the words themselves are problematic and not the system they describe. I interpret this laughter as the audience's way of showing discomfort with being asked to ally themselves with an antipatriarchal disobedient critique. This laughter reminds me that if I dare to challenge patriarchy openly, I risk not being taken seriously.

Citizens in this nation fear challenging patriarchy even as they lack overt awareness that they are fearful, so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious are the rules of patriarchy. I often tell audiences that if we were to go door-­to-door asking if we should end male violence against women, most people would give their unequivocal sup­port. Then if you told them we can only stop male violence against women by ending male domination, by eradicating patriarchy, they would begin to hesitate, to change their position. Despite the many gains of contemporary femi­nist movement-greater equality for women in the work­force, more tolerance for the relinquishing of rigid gender roles-patriarchy as a system remains intact, and many people continue to believe that it is needed if humans are to survive as a species. This belief seems ironic, given that patriarchal methods of organizing nations, especially the insistence on violence as a means of social control, has actually led to the slaughter of millions of people on the planet.

Until we can collectively acknowledge the damage patri­archy causes and the suffering it creates, we cannot address male pain. We cannot demand for men the right to be whole, to be givers and sustainers of life. Obviously some patriarchal men are reliable and even benevolent caretakers and providers, but still they are imprisoned by a system that undermines their mental health.

Patriarchy promotes insanity. It is at the root of the psy­chological ills troubling men in our nation. Nevertheless there is no mass concern for the plight of men. In Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi includes very little discussion of patriarchy:

Ask feminists to diagnose men's problems and you will often get a very clear explanation: men are in crisis because women are properly challenging male dominance. Women are ask­ing men to share the public reins and men can't bear it. Ask antifeminists and you will get a diag­nosis that is, in one respect, similar., Men are troubled, many conservative pundits say, because women have gone far beyond their demands for equal treatment and are now trying to take power and control away from men.... The underlying message: men cannot be men, only eunuchs, if they are not in control. Both the feminist and antifeminist views are rooted in a peculiarly modern American perception that to be a man means to be at the controls and at all times to feel yourself in control.

Faludi never interrogates the notion of control. She never considers that the notion that men were somehow in con­trol, in power, and satisfied with their lives before contem­porary feminist movement is false.

Patriarchy as a system has denied males access to full emotional well-being, which is not the same as feeling rewarded, successful, or powerful because of one's capacity to assert control over others. To truly address male pain and male crisis we must as a nation be willing to expose the harsh reality that patriarchy has damaged men in the past and continues to damage them in the present. If patriarchy were truly rewarding to men, the violence and addiction in family life that is so all-pervasive would not exist. This vio­lence was not created by feminism. If patriarchy were rewarding, the overwhelming dissatisfaction most men feel in their work lives-a dissatisfaction extensively docu­mented in the work of Studs Terkel and echoed in Faludi's treatise-would not exist.

In many ways Stiffed was yet another betrayal of American men because Faludi spends so much time trying not to challenge patriarchy that she fails to highlight the necessity 'of ending patriarchy if we are to liberate men. Rather she writes:

Instead of wondering why men resist women's struggle for a freer and healthier life, I began to wonder why men refrain from engaging in their own struggle. Why, despite a crescendo of random tantrums, have they offered no methodical, reasoned response to their predicament: Given the untenable and insulting nature of the demands placed on men to prove themselves in our culture, why don't men revolt? . . . Why haven't men responded to the series of betrayals in their own lives-to the failures of their fathers to make good on their promises-with some­thing coequal to feminism?

Note that Faludi does not dare risk either the ire of feminist females by suggesting that men can find salvation in femi­nist movement or rejection by potential male readers who are solidly antifeminist by suggesting that they have some­thing to gain from engaging feminism.

So far in our nation visionary feminist movement is the only struggle for justice that emphasizes the need to end patriarchy. No mass body of women has challenged patri­archy and neither has any group of men come together to lead the struggle. The crisis facing men is not the crisis of masculinity, it is the crisis of patriarchal masculinity. Until we make this distinction clear, men will continue to fear that any critique of patriarchy represents a threat. Distinguishing political patriarchy, which he sees as largely committed to ending sexism, therapist Terrence Real makes clear that the patriarchy damaging us all is embed­ded in our psyches:

Psychological patriarchy is the dynamic between those qualities deemed "masculine" and "feminine" in which half of our human­ traits are exalted while the other half is deval­ued. Both men and women participate in this tortured value system. Psychological patriarchy is a "dance of contempt," a perverse form of con­nection that replaces true intimacy with com­plex, covert layers of dominance and submission, collusion and manipulation. It is the unac­knowledged paradigm of relationships that has suffused Western civilization generation after generation, deforming both sexes, and destroy­ing the passionate bond between them.

By highlighting psychological patriarchy, we see that every­one is implicated and we are freed from the misperception that men are the enemy. To end patriarchy we must chal­lenge both its psychological and its concrete manifesta­tions in daily life. There are folks who are able to critique patriarchy but unable to act in an antipatriarchal manner.

To end male pain, to respond effectively to male crisis, we have to name the problem. We have to both acknowl­edge that the problem is patriarchy and work to end patri­archy. Terrence Real offers this valuable insight: "The recla­mation of wholeness is a process even more fraught for men than it has been for women, more difficult and more profoundly threatening to the culture at large." If men are to reclaim the essential goodness of male being, if they are to regain the space of openheartedness and emotional expressiveness that is the foundation of well-being, we must envision alternatives to patriarchal masculinity. We must all change.

(no subject)

July 31st, 2006 (11:42 pm)

What do you feel is the largest threat to US democracy today? Why is it a threat, what factors contribute to the threat, and what potential solutions do you see? How should the US implement possible solutions, and what are the long-term consequences if the threat is not adequately addressed?

Dr. WEB DuBois once acutely stated that “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem with the color line” although it is the 21st century, Dr. DuBois’s statements held water then and continue to ring true today. The problem with the political construct of race -and its applications that continue to deny full citizenship to people of color in the United States is one of the most notable threats to democracy. It is a threat because a society relies on institutions to function and an institution built on racism and racist oppression promotes injustice and inequality- which are in direct opposition to democracy. There is little to no room for discussion when it comes to acknowledging the historical treatment of people of color in the United States. Such examples are slavery, Indian Schools, segregation, Jim Crow legislation and currently, although heavily contested- is the over-representation of people of color in the prison systems. The political theory of race, constructs of whiteness, and the institution of white supremacy need to be critically looked at and analyzed as blockades to building a more democratic society. A critical look at this mixed with action will help the United States become a freer place for all peoples and create a society which is based on justice, acceptance and true democracy which in turn has incredibly radically libratory applications in the United States and possible abroad.
It first must be stated that the term white or whiteness does not mean a biological characteristics.
There has been plenty of scientific evidence to show that race and white in those categories does not hold water, therefore, throughout this paper it will mean a political and social construct. Harlem Renaissance writer James Baldwin provides a good base for what whiteness means in his essay On Being ‘White’…and Other Lies by stating that “Americans became white-the people who, as they claim, “settled” the country became white-because of the necessity of denying the Black presence and justifying Black subjugation” (Baldwin, 92). This means that it was a political choice that was meant to advance a group of people, not something inherit. In the 1800’s it showed in slavery, in the 1900’s through segregation, and today in privileges that are given to people that are white. Northern Arizona University associate Political Science professor Joel Olson’s book The Abolition of White Democracy argues that the United States is a democratic society in the sense that white people are equal to each other and have quite often room for opportunity and advancement yet remain superior to people that are not deemed white or do not follow a program fro whiteness. Olson suggests that a political theory of whiteness will solve this problem along with policy solutions to undo the wages whiteness has had on humanity as a whole. “Undoing it does not simply mean refusing to classify people by race, it means abandoning a politics in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of another” (Olson, xviii). He addresses white citizenship and states that “Historically white citizens have made the wrong choice about their democratic alternatives, but the beautiful thing about the ability to make a decision is that one can always change one’s mind” (Olson, xxix).
Once race is acknowledge as a political category that acts in the form of an oppressive institution, American citizens can work to heal the Nation in the form of reparations, a critical praxis on the repressive nature policing and prisons, people of colors and poor peoples access to health care, schooling, and housing. Any policies that attack institutional racism will help the United States redefine democracy and will bring about radical change in the quality of life in all citizens- not just people of color. People that are granted the privileges of whiteness need to reject those privileges because they are undemocratic and undeserved and ally themselves with people of color to push for a better society. This is what Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev calls for in the theory and practice of white people becoming race traitors. This will be a “politics based on a simple principle: No privilege held can compare to a world in which privilege does not exist” (Olson, 145). These are hard concepts for a lot of people to take in at first, however; it can be done in such a way once people step closer to these theories and the more accessible they become, the more people will be ready to act to create a sustainable just society and most Americans already have ready in their imaginations and their hearts.

1. DuBois, WEB. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Blue Heron. 1956.
2. Baldwin, James. “On Being “White” and Other Lies”, Essence. April 1984, 92.
3. Olson, Joel. The Abolition of White Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2004.
4. Ignatiev, Noel. Race Traitor. http://racetraitor.org/. Visited 07312006.

Problems in Democracy

July 24th, 2006 (07:33 pm)

The assignment:
Paper #1: Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, our country has faced the issue of how to balance national security and civil liberties. For example, critics of the USA PATRIOT Act say that civil liberties are trampled under the umbrella of national security. Supporters say the Act gives the government the authority to act in a proactive manner against those who would commit terrorist acts against the US. As the issues of national security and civil liberties are both foundations of American democracy, how does the US strike the balance?

The Response:

Democracy provides the basis for the best that can be brought out in humanity. However, there is no consensus on the definition, implementation, and maintenance of democracy and this lack of agreement leads to a consistent and constant grappling with issues of civil liberties and national security. American democracy is one that is disputed throughout many political and intellectual circles as to whether or not it is actually democratic. Thus, it is difficult if one does not believe that the United States has always worked in the democratic interest of its entire people to defend the principles and policies of national security. There has been a long history with the United States acting undemocratically which can be seen globally through imperialism and now- globalization. It can also be justified locally through historical examples of slavery, segregation, indigenous rights, and the treatment of Queer people, immigrants, women, and dissidents in the United States. It has usually been a struggle against policies of security and policing that have led to more human freedom and security- not the opposite.
However, the threat of terrorism in the United States is rampant due to the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and this has brought the political problem of radical reactionary Islam to the forefront of political discourse. As a response to these attacks, the PATRIOT act was established and it was marketed as a way to protect the nation from anymore attacks from radical Islamist terrorism by giving the FBI and CIA more room to do counterintelligence programs. The greatest critique of the PATRIOT act has come from leftist and libertarians because it pushes back civil liberties that make the United States a more democratic place to live than other countries. Most people have stated that there needs to be a balance between national security and civil liberties. However, given the history of the repressive and undemocratic function of the security forces in the United States, it is difficult to say that a balance should exist because of this oppressive nature of the police and intelligence institutions. Therefore, one way to acknowledge national security issues is to look at this history and look at what causes these threats. With a more holistic view of international relations with a focus on the instability that is caused by colonialism, imperialism and globalization will do wonders for security that is democratic. Thus, a rejection of new laws such as the PATRIOT act and a push for justice and civil liberties will lead to a more secure and free nation. A reliance on the CIA to protect civil liberties- or stating that a balance should exist is a naïve position at best and a dangerous one at worst.
There is plenty of evidence that many countries have been politically de-stabilized because of the systems that were set up by colonialism and this destabilization was perpetuated by security forces, which have in turn have jeopardized the security of people in the United States. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) articulates the destruction of developing countries due to colonialism and the United States security forces in his October 18th speech at MIT titled The New War on Terror. He sites examples of “the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua which left tens of thousands of people dead, the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery” and relates it to the CIA backed coup in Chile, the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba, overthrow of the Shah in Iran, and the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the 1980’s. These situations, under the guise of national security and intelligence gathering for security caused political instability and were rooted in colonialism and imperialism. Thus, with a look towards history, we can see that that PATRIOT act serves nearly the same function as the COINTELPRO during the 1970’s at home, and the political destruction of developing countries abroad. The instability caused by these interventions is rearing its ugly head and as Chomsky states “We’re seeing some of these effects now. September 11th is one.”
“It’s hard to find many rays of light [with post-September 11th policy] but one of them is that there is an increased openness” meaning that there needs to be a critical look at the CIA, FBI and the functions of imperialism that will help achieve a balance between civil liberties and security in the United States. Since the track record of intelligence and security forces has shown that it fails to provide security for its constituents and has eroded the freedoms of people all over the world, it is fair to say that the only way a balance can be achieved is through a radical change in policy. From there, the doors can be opened to a more democratic nation for the United States that is based on cooperation and respect as opposed to exploitation and destruction.

Works Cited:

Chomsky, Noam. "The New War Against Terror." Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 18102001

< back | 0 - 10 |