Hypatia, Inc.

Bribery and Intimidation: A Discussion of Sandra Lee Bartky's "Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression" Author(s): Rhoda Hadassah Kotzin Reviewed work(s): Source: Hypatia, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter, 1993), pp. 164-172 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Hypatia, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810308 . Accessed: 16/03/2012 12:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Hypatia, Inc. and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hypatia.

http://www.jstor.org

SYMPOSIUM

A and Bribery Intimidation: Discussion Lee and of Sandra Bartky's Femininity in Studies thePhenomenology Domination: of Oppression
RHODA HADASSAH KOTZIN

A reviewof my undergraduate students' commentaries two of Bartky's on essays on serves theoccasion elaborating Bartky's as and for of analyses factorsthatsustain thesubjection disempowermentwomen.In my elaborationdraw and I of perpetuate "In of fromJohnStuartMill'sstatement: the case of women, eachindividual the " is stateof bribery intimidation and combined. I conclude subject-class in a chronic the transformation by raising question,How is personal possible?

Overthe yearsI have had the privilegeof hearingmostof the essaysincluded in this volume when they were presentedas worksin progressat conferences work has of the Midwest Society for Women in Philosophy.SandraBartky's stimulated and influenced my thinking in so many ways that it would be difficultforme to specifyin detail my indebtednessto her,and I won't tryhere. Instead,I shall approachthe essaysas if they were "assignedreading"in the coursein feministphilosophythat manyof us areteaching,or will be teaching, or wish we had been born late enough to have taken insteadof teaching it. I have in fact used two of Sandra's essaysin a courseI have been teachingof Feminism-a "300"-levelcourse chiefly for underPhilosophicalAspects graduatejuniors and seniors. The essays are "Towarda Phenomenology of Feminist Consciousness"and "On Psychological Oppression."I scheduled them for some class sessionsduringthe last two weeks of the course.All the to studentswererequired readboth essays.Foreach essaya studentwasassigned to give a five-minute oralpresentation,partexposition and partcommentary, Kotzin vol. Hadassah 1993) byRhoda Hypatia 8, no. 1 (Winter

Rhoda HadassahKotzin

165

which was followed by a generalclass discussion.In addition, studentscould elect to write commentarieson one or both of Bartky's essaysas part of their final written assignmentfor the course.My guidelinesfor the students'commentariesincludedthe following: 1. Be constructivewithout being uncritical. 2. Pick out what you find to be correct,insightful,well argued,convincing, worthy of being exploredfurther,or worthy of being taken seriously, and explain why you find it so. Where appropriate, might you make referenceto other authors.Youmight think of waysof strengthening the paper,e.g., by consideringand replyingto actual or possible objections.And whereyou think somethingis worthexploringfurther, a become collaborator the authorof the paper. with 3. Should you find something you think is unclear, not well argued, inaccurate, exaggerated,minimized,trivialized,treated dismissively, distorted,assertedwithout being supported,left unexamined,or otherwisefaultyor deficient, makeyourpoint veryspecificallyandtactfully and make some concrete, specific suggestions for correcting it or making up the deficiency. Again, become a collaboratorwith the author of the paper and do what you can to rescue it. And if, even though you are as supportiveand constructiveas you can be, you find that you remain unconvinced, state your doubtsor objections clearly but tactfully. In mostcasesthe oralpresentations commentary and essaysbroughtup three scenariosas told by SandraBartky: 1. The interiordialoguethat takesplace in the toy department Marshall of Field's. What if, just this once, I send a doll to my nephew and an erectorset to my niece?Will this confirmthe growingsuspicion in my familythat I am a crank?... Must I seize every opportunity?May I never take the easy way out? (Bartky1990, 19-20) 2. Harassment the street, whistles,and catcalls. on [T]here is more involved in this encounter than their mere fragmented perceptionof me.... I mustbe made to see myself as they see me [as a "nice piece of ass"].(Bartky1990, 27) 3. The job interview in which the male interviewerstaresat the breasts of the young woman being interviewedand she is discomfited,feels humiliated,performs badly,and fails to get the job (Bartky1990, 27).

166

Hypatia

And the issue of concern with appearancewas often brought up by the students: [T]he imperativenot to neglect our appearancesuggeststhat we can neglect it, that it is within ourpowerto makeourselves look better-not just neaterand cleaner,but prettier,and more attractive. What is presupposed this is that we don't look by good enough already... that there is somethingwrongwith us as we are. (Bartky1990, 29) My students'responsesto these two essaysmight be roughlydivided into three groups.The firstgroupconsistsof those whose commentaryessayscame out less than constructive and less than tactful. Bartky's work (or perhaps as Bartkyherself) was characterized "neurotic"(the toy store dilemma,being upset by catcalls, being overly concerned about her appearance).Some students viewed Bartkyas a "crybaby" who blames other people (i.e., men) for that is wrongwith her life. To be sure,later investigationrevealed everything that the authorsof these (blessedlyfew) commentarieswere male studentsand they were a very small minorityof the male studentsat that. A second groupof undergraduates, mostlyfemaleand mostlyaboutnineteen to twenty-one yearsold, were surprised and impressedby the idea that there can be such a thing as psychological oppression.They were persuadedthat was on the right track in trying to explore how fragmentationand Bartky or mystification,resultingin self-estrangement psychicalienation,areeffected culturaldomination, and sexual objectification.These throughstereotyping, studentsshowed, however, a certain impatience to get on with the business: Now that we have a handy way of stating what is the matter,we should not Let justwringourhandsand say,"Howawful!" us now turnto changingthings what is wrong.Most of these students insteadof just analyzingand reanalyzing were taking their first philosophy course and were looking for less talk and more action, or at least a blueprintfor action. The third groupconsists of undergraduate studentswho were over twentyas five yearsold, or had themselvesundergonewhat they would characterize of a feminist,orhad been hassledin barsor otherpublic "becoming" something places, or had been treated in a harassingmanner in a job interview,or had and could find been harassedon the job by a male co-workeror supervisor, their own counterpartsto the rage, confusion, suspicion, wariness,and selfdoubt about which Bartkywritesso evocatively. Forthis third group,the moralof the toy departmentstoryseems to be: at this stage in the developmentof feministconsciousness,you'redamnedif you do andyou'redamnedif you don't.Once the issue(which toy forwhich child?) is raised, there does not seem to be a satisfactorysolution. That is because of into day-to-dayliving has been transformed a "series invitationsto struggle" made (Bartky1990, 20). Regardingthe catcalls,hoots, whistles, and remarks

Rhoda HadassahKotzin

167

by self-appointedgraders,it seems to be that any man or groupof men feels entitled not only to rendera judgmenton any womanwalkingalong minding her own business,but also to announce to her.The studentsrealizedthat this it is harassment even though, when confronted,a "grader" might point out that the womanwas afterall given a high gradeand shouldfeel complimented,not insulted. They understoodthe whistles and catcalls as part of a "ritualof subjugation" (Bartky1990, 27). And womenwho had themselvesexperienced had their own storiesto tell. interviewingand on-the-job harassment These more sympatheticand older and more experienced students (and those with more training in philosophy) looked at some of the lessons that Bartkydrawsfrom her examplesand scenariosin the first two essaysin this volume and found that she rendersarticulatesome importantinsights about what forms the domination/oppression women can take. They came to of believe that it is much more deep and pervasive than they had earliersuspected. As to suggestionsfor how to go on with the work, some wished that Bartkycould expand on what there is in the processof becoming a feminist that is in any way joyful,as she had said it wasfor her. Some thought it would be helpful to their own moraleto offersome real hope of change. How might SandraBartkyrespondto these three groupsof student commentators? to the firstgroup,I wouldreplythat Bartkyis no crybabyand I As am sure that she needs no help from me in respondingto these students' objections.Obviously,spendingnine weeks studyingphilosophicalaspectsof feminismwith me did not change all hearts and minds. As to the other two groups,I would like to attempt a "Bartkian" response,based mainly on the later essays in this volume. Here I stop short of claiming collaborationwith the authorbut try to suggest,or at least insinuate,something of what I would like to see Bartky in the wayof proceedingwith what I taketo be a long-term do project. Let us startwith the demandfor a blueprintfor action. It might be objected that we cannot give a plan for action becausewe are so saturated,as it were, with male domination that we do not have a very clear idea of what a society that is completely free of genderoppressionwould be like. I would suggestin responsethat one does not have to be utterlyclear about everythingin order to be clear enough about some things. Forexample, a feminist vision of such a society wouldbe of a society withoutprostitutes,a society without either the formalinstitutionsor informalpracticesaroundprostitution.But what do we do about prostitutesand prostitutionin the here and now? If it is a blueprint for action that is wanted, then it is possibleto say that we shouldworktoward decriminalizing prostitutionwhile realizingthat we are at best reducingthe extent of the harmfulconsequences,under the present laws, to women who right now are prostitutes, without thereby approvingof prostitution as an institution (see Bartky 1990, 50). At the same time, when we ask ourselves what it wouldtake politicallyto producea society in which genderoppression

168

Hypatia

would be recordedin the historybooks as belonging to a past era, we might not be clearaboutwhat such a society wouldlook like (in detail) or how, even to in termsof overall strategy, bringit about.Even so, we could still say that it wouldsurelybe a society wherethe institutionof prostitutionwouldnot exist, where the issue would not even arise. At this point I am going to bring in a pair of allies for SandraLee Bartky: Harriet(Hardy)TaylorMill andJohn StuartMill. Supposethat they areright in thinking that the subordinationof women by men is the hardestform of or groupoppression,subordination, subjectionto eradicateand will be the last to go. To be sure, Bartkywould insist that gender issues are not played out independently of issues of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, class, age, physicalhandicap,sexual orientation,etc. Nor are they playedout independently of some particulartime period, set of laws, or other culture-specific conditions. Nevertheless, it is possible, withinculture-specificconditions, to formsof oppressionand to attempt to disclose both pick out gender-related thatand how they oppresswomen, as well as to specify some of the ways that various other modes of oppression are intertwined with male domination within these culture-specific conditions (and, of course, features of an individual'ssituation). HarrietTaylorMill and John Stuart Mill give several reasonsfor believing that the subjectionof women is deep and pervasiveand very difficultto eradicate.1 When, however, we ask why the existence of one-half of the species should be merelyancillaryto that of the other ... the only reasonwhich can be given is, that men like it. (H.T. Mill 1970, 107) Custom hardenshuman beings to any kind of degradation,by deadeningthe part of their nature which would resist it. And the case of women is, in this respect,even a peculiarone, for no other inferiorcaste that we have heardof have been taught as to regardtheirdegradation theirhonour.... The plea that women do not desire any change, is the same that has been urged,times out of mind, againstthe proposalof abolishingany social evil-"there is no complaint";which is generally not true, and when true, only so becausethere is not that hope of success,without which complaint seldom makesitself audible to unwillingears. (H.T. Mill 1970, 117-18; italics added) We must consider,too, that the possessorsof the power have facilities in this case, greaterthan in any other, to prevent any uprisingagainstit. Everyone of the subjectslives underthe very eye, and almost, it may be said, in the hands, of one of the masters-in closer intimacy with him than with any of their

Rhoda HadassahKotzin

169

with no means of combining against him, no fellow-subjects; of even locally overmasteringhim, and, on the other power hand, with the strongest motives for seeking his favour and avoiding to give him offence. In strugglesfor political emancipation, everybodyknows how often its championsare bought In off by bribes,or dauntedby terrors. the case of women, each individual of the subject-classis in a chronic state of bribery and intimidationcombined. (J.S. Mill 1970, 136-37) Bartkywould perhapsadd the following:The depth and pervasivenessof women's subordination are even greater than had been suspected. Legal or remedies,though necessary,will not suffice.Removal of economic barriers formsof economic disempowerment but (whateverthey might be) is necessary not sufficient. And even both together are insufficient. Removing all basedon religion, nationality,ethnicity, age, "disabilities" disadvantages and and physicalcharacteristics, all the rest,still will not do it. Indeed,getting rid of all the formalinstitutionsand their corresponding social sanctionsthat tend to keep women in their place will not suffice. sanctions. It Bartkyhas fastened on processesor mechanismsof informal would be useful to think of them as operatingthrough modes of what John Stuart Mill called bribery and intimidation sometimes both combined. and These arethe techniquesof co-optation.They operatenot so much to produce, but to maintain and perpetuate,male domination and female disempowerwe ment. By "bribery" mightunderstand those things that Bartkycharacterizes as "seductive": seem positive and they might make us seem to ourselves they to be fine or decent or noble or competentoreffectiveorpowerfulor important and worthwhile and appreciated.By "intimidation"we might understand those processesor mechanismswhich makeit less costly to avoid or not aspire to certain things, or not to believe we deservethem, or not even to believe it is appropriate us to hope for,pursue,or desirethem. This is a processthat for makescertain things appearto be either out of the questionfor oneself or too and even costlyto others(and hence immoralas well as inappropriate) perhaps too costly to oneself. The last three chaptersof Femininity Domination and disclosesome waysthat briberyand intimidation operate. In the essay on Foucault and femininity, Bartky (1990, 63-82) explores the requirementof conformity to norms of femininity and the means by which it is secured,making the point that our is "femininity" a constructedfemininity.We maybe pleasedor displeasedwith what we have done, and continue to do, with our hair,skin, makeup,clothes, and our size, shape, and weight. We may be unawareof the extent to which ourmotilityanduse of spaceconformto an imposedand inculcatedconception of what is feminine and what is unfeminine. In this essay,Bartkybringsout some of the waysin which we have been turnedinto ourown chief supervisors

170

Hypatia

in the discipline of the body.These discussionsrendermore articulatewhat the "intemalization"of oppressionconsists in and some of the ways it is produced. In the essay "Shame and Gender" (Bartky,1990) the principal theme is not "intimidation," throughthreatsand formalsanctions, but throughinforwomen by teaching them how to keep themselves mal waysof disempowering down and makingit psychologicallycostly to be too uppity.Bartkypoints up the effect of pervasive"sociallearning"on the constructionof self-assessing emotions. She arguesthat the very activity of self-assessment describedin (as the standardtheories) supposesa certain type (i.e., a "male"type) of moral agent capableof being ashamedof himselffor what he has done or for failing The low self-esteemof the women to measureup to a clearlygiven standard. is Bartky talkingaboutis not like that. It is rathera globalfeeling-tone, a vague and unarticulatedsense of being inadequate,not a response to anything in particularthat is shameful. In this essay on shame Bartky gives a richly elaboratedextension of her earlieressayon psychologicaloppression.Now we in see that the informalsanctions are everywhere society, even in education, long thought to be the most egalitarianof our institutions. The assaultson self-esteem are difficult to detect just because they are ubiquitous.They are micro-assaults; they occur every day,everywhere. In the last essayof this volume, Bartky(1990, 99-119) arguesthat women's feedingmen'segos and tendingmen'semotionalwounds-the workof "female tenderess"-may or may not benefit men as much as the women whose emotional labor is expended in this way are persuadedit does. But what is noteworthyis that it is, by and large,not reciprocatedequally.Bartkyargues that this unreciprocated care-givingby women to adult men (not babiesand children) with whom they are in intimate relationshipsmay give the illusion of power, competency, importance in someone's life, but it is in the final analysisdisempoweringfor women. Women'sprovision of emotional sustenance with little in returnmay be one of the most importantways in which "conventionalfemininity"revealsitself as profoundlyseductive. and What is so seductiveaboutit?It seemsto offerus pleasures gratification: that is why it workswhen it works.That is why it is so hardto renounce, and Some kinds of that is not recognizedas bribery. perhapsthat is the "bribery" briberyare a bit easierto detect. This kind is a setup, a giving with one hand that Bartkytalks about and taking awaywith the other. The "mystification" in her earlier essays receives a new articulation:"We are offered real and gratifying feminine satisfactions in return for what this same femininity requiresthat we renounce" (Bartky,1990, 116). And as Bartkypoints out, these gratificationsare the harderto renounce if there are not alternative sourcesof gratification.No wondernot all women are feminists. But some are.Ifnot yet feminists,manywomenareon theirwayto becoming feminists.How is it possible?I want to tur, in conclusion,to the issueof what

Rhoda HadassahKotzin

171

Bartkyhas termed the "politics of personal transformation" (Bartky 1990, 45-62). In addressing question why this or that is so seductive, Bartkywants to the avoid calling certainchanges"voluntary." she rightlypoints out, the claim As that anyone, and hence any woman, can change, if she really wants to, whatevershe disapproves in her own desires,attitudes,waysof responding, of and the like, is both attractiveand disempowering. is attractivebecauseit It that we arenot merepuppets.But this extremeversionof voluntarism suggests easily leads one to something like blamingthe victim for allowing herself to be a victim (it leadsto absurdities well, it seemsto me). On the other hand, as giving an account in which what is seductive is determined-indeed, overdetermined-is not only a position of hopelessness; also runscontraryto our it own experiences and observations,for, it would make both deviance and resistance inexplicable. Surely some of the people some of the time do see throughthings and are in fact able to get past them, even though others are not so able and even though no one, it seems, sees througheverythingall at once or all of the time. I suggestthat sometimes seeing through things is a matterof realizingthat one has been held in place by a combinationof bribery and intimidation.Perhapsthe intimidationdoes not workas well any longer becausethe external sanctionshave become weakenedand one comes to see that the main enforcerof the norms,at this point, is reallyoneself. But even if a bribeis seen for what it is, there is no guaranteethat one will be able to mount a resistancethat is more than an emptygesture.Perhapsthe lack of an alternativesource of gratificationmakes it in fact too difficult to give up. It is possible to slide back and forth between seeing through things and tryingto change them, and not reallyseeing throughthem. is However, sometimes "transformation" in fact possible and is in fact accomplished.One is no longer under the sway of a mystification.One no oneself as a living, breathingbattlefieldwhere one is damnedif longerregards one does and damnedif one doesn't-at least with respectto some particular issue.Seeing throughthe seductiveness(the bribe)is not a guarantee,but if it can be shown how it is possible,then we have an account of what personal transformation be, insteadof vaguehand-wavingand appealto metaphors, can and variousrhetoricaldevices. analogies, And this is where I would strikea balance between the last two groupsof studentsI startedout talkingabout.What to recommendin the way of going on fromhere?Moreexplorationin the phenomenologyof oppression,with an out eye to exploringas a possibilitygetting of it. My suggestionforhow to go on from here would be furtherexplorationof the question, After the processof mystificationhas been uncovered,what makesself-transformation possible?

172

Hypatia

NOTE 1. Their remarks might also be construed,it seems to me, as offeringan earlyand raises: Why aren'tall womenfeminists? partialresponseto one of the questionsBartky

REFERENCES Studiesin the phenomenology Bartky,Sandra Lee. 1990. Feminityand domination: of New York: Routledge. oppression. of on ed. Mill, Harriet Taylor.1970.Enfranchisement women.In Essays sexequality, Alice S. Rossi.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. ed. Mill, John Stuart.1970. The subjectionof women.In Essayson sex equality, Alice S. Rossi.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.