Caitlin Geoghan
ENGL C0865: Adult Learners of Language & Literacy
Professor Barbara Gleason
May 6, 2014
Objectified: Women and
Perspective Transformation
The capacity of people to exceed all
expectations is rooted in their impulse to question and struggle against
opposition. Animals react to changes in the conditions of their environment
without questioning what caused the change or whether the change is just. “I
never saw a wild thing sorry for itself,” wrote the poet, D.H Lawrence. “A
small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry
for itself.” Animals are marvelously adaptive and survive incredible
hardship; but, according to Paolo Freire, they are not challenged by their
environment; they are stimulated by it.
Human beings have an entirely different relationship to our environment;
before we drop frozen from the branch we will – at the very least – question
the source and fairness of the conditions that threaten us.
Paolo Freire’s
premise in Pedagogy of the Oppressed -- that there is need for a
specific pedagogical method which would humanize alienated populations -- stems
from his assertion that power and resources are unevenly controlled by half of
an adversarial duality.
The Oppressor,
or Subject, holds the major share of power in all realms—economic, social and
political. The Subject class, by virtue of their position of power --
cultivated both by individual activism and institutional injustice – are able
to act upon another group in a way that maintains their individual status and
strengthens the systems that bestow preference upon them.
The less
fortunate participant in this duality, the Oppressed or Object, receives the
action of the Subject. They are acted upon and – by virtue of their more
passive position—become dispossessed. They are a “culture of silence…their
ignorance and lethargy [are] the direct product of the whole situation of
economic, social, and political domination—and of the paternalism—of which they
[are] victims. Rather than being
encouraged and equipped to know and respond to the concrete realities of their
world, they were kept “submerged” in a situation in which such critical awareness
and response were practically impossible.” (Macedo 30) It is a consequence of
this submersion that the Object class is dehumanized. They become so immersed in reality that they
are unable to see it clearly or to challenge it; instead they are simply
stimulated by it and react to it. The Object class, like the small bird
freezing on the bough, feels their
condition but dehumanization blocks them from perceiving or responding to the cause of their condition.
The Object class
is twice bound: by the situation imposed
upon them by the Subject through direct action and by the effect this direct
action has on the psychological and mental processes of the Object class. The
adoption of the definitions and language of the Oppressor by the Object class produces
a point of view which is as difficult -- if not more difficult-- to overcome
than any external pressure. This attitude serves as a major impediment to any
real progress and is the result of social conditioning which engenders a
pessimistic perspective that views oppression as natural and inevitable. The dual nature of these bonds
requires action on two fronts.
For humanization
to occur through Freire’s philosophy of education work must be accomplished on
two fronts. First, there must be direct resistance to the status quo; however,
this activism only addresses the action against the Object class by the Subject
class. The Object class must also come
to understand the ways in which they are “hosts of the oppressor.” (Freire 48) Although the Objects are
certainly aware of their own underprivileged status -- both as individuals and
as a socio-economic class -- they suffer from a “fear of freedom” (Freire 46) which causes them to behave in a
prescribed manner defined by the Subjects. In other words, Objects use
definitions of success established by Subject to measure their own
advancement.
This adherence to prescribed behavior
supports and strengthens the very institutions and social attitudes that
constrain them. An
individual of the Object class may become successful by the standards set by
the Subject class; however, individual success does nothing to improve the lot
of the group as a whole. In fact, that individual will be pushed forward and
touted as an example of success for other members of the Object class to
emulate; a tact chosen to shift the responsibility for oppression onto the
Object class and to present their oppression as a choice. The Object class—having
internalized the attitude that supports the status quo—actually becomes an
agent against its own interest.
The nature of
the relationship between Oppressor and Oppressed is difficult to define on many
levels. A “successful” member of a
traditionally oppressed group is, simultaneously, an Oppressor and one of the
Oppressed. In his introduction, Donald
Macedo relates an encounter with a “young African American man who attends an
Ivy League university.” When asked about
the political affiliation of his parents, the man told Macedo that his parents
“usually vote with the white middle class, even if, in the long run, their vote
is detrimental to most black people.” Macedo 15) This anecdote perfectly
captures Freire’s characterization of how the Object can be a “host of the
oppressor.” The individual success—as
defined by the Subject class-- of that African American head of household
altered his perspective such that he identified with other members of the
Subject class, rather than the traditionally oppressed class of which he is
also a member. Aligning himself politically
with the Subject class both signals an acceptance of the rules they impose upon
the Object class and shifts the responsibility of failure onto the shoulders of
other African Americans. This example illustrates how insidious the effect of
social conditioning is and how difficult it is to effect change in the systems
that repress.
According to the
2010 US census, women hold a slight majority in numbers in the United States.
Women account for 50.8% of the population.
While it is a mistake to view any group as one unified body, it’s also a
mistake to believe that members of the group don’t have anything in
common. Women may differ with regard to
race, politics, socio-economic class, religion, and any number of other
factors; however, all women in the United States function within a social
system that is not unbiased toward them.
Women have made
great strides toward equality in the years since this country’s foundational
charter—The Declaration of Independence—declared all men equal. The battle—hard fought—hasn’t been
continuously progressive. Instead, women
seem often in the process of taking back what was taken away. The universal women’s suffrage movement has
its roots in female anti-slavery associations that were beginning to speak out
publicly in the 1830’s. Women of
privilege, white and married to property owners, had already held and lost the
right to vote. In New York, the women’s
right to vote was revoked in 1777. In 1780, women lost the right to vote in
Massachusetts. In 1784, women lost the
right to vote in New Hampshire. The last
state to revoke, New Jersey, did so in 1807.
Colonial voting
restrictions in the United States reflected Victorian notions about gender,
defining women as weaker than men—both physically and mentally-- and prone to
hysteria. Arguments for a white, male-only electorate focused on what the men
of the era conceived of as the delicate nature of women and their inability to
deal with the coarse realities of politics. The arguments against women’s
suffrage were based on ideas conceived by men, but many of the most outspoken
opponents of women’s suffrage were women.
Anti-suffragists
appealed to society’s conceptions of male and female roles and the proper
relationship between the genders.
Outspoken anti-suffragette, Helen Kendrick Johnson -- among other women
-- accepted the paternalistic protection of men as natural and correct and claimed
that women’s suffrage was undemocratic. She wrote in a New York Times editorial, that
the suffrage movement “is bringing this land to the verge of civil war.”(Johnson
1925) She considered the movement to be “the opposite of everything that makes
for civic and social righteousness,”(Johnson 1925) and considered suffrage movement to be
humiliating to women in that it suggested that women should enter an arena in
which they, in the judgment of both God and men, had no place. Despite intense opposition, the suffragettes
prevailed. They gained the legal right
to vote in 1920.
The Nineteenth
Amendment, ratified in 1920, did more than grant women the right to vote; it
made us citizens by repudiating that language in the Fourteenth Amendment that
defined citizens of the United States as male. The legal prohibition was
lifted; the suffragettes had gained the power to participate in the process: to
elect politicians that would work toward women’s interests and to run for
office.
A group of
determined women had been able, through a process of activism and verbalism, to
“construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in
order to guide future action” (qtd. in Taylor 5). They had corrected an inequality under the law,
however; social mores are often far more intractable and repressive than any
legal injunction. Women, even after the
official success of the suffragette movement, found themselves facing intense
social condemnation when they exercised their right to vote. Women were still considered a largely
undesirable element in the public sphere. They had changed the law but had been
unable to externalize and eradicate the socially accepted role of women, held
by many women—suffering from “fear of freedom”-- that women should be confined
to hearth and home. Despite social pressure, enough women were willing to
overstep their accepted role and exercise their right.
The right
to vote, once gained, was utilized in larger and larger numbers as time
progressed. Although women currently
hold only a slight majority in terms of population, there’s a larger gap when
it comes to the activity of eligible voters.
Statistics gathered by the National Women’s Political Caucus assert that
the proportion of eligible females who voted has exceeded the proportion of
eligible males who have voted in every presidential election since 1980. In terms of raw numbers, female voters have
outnumbered males in every presidential election since 1964.
Women also outnumber males in voter
registration. In 2008, there were 78.1
million registered female voters and 68.2 registered male voters. In the 2008 presidential election, 60.4% of
eligible women voted (70.4 million women) while 55.7% of eligible men voted
(60.7 million men.) In nonpresidential election years the gap is smaller but
still significant; in 2006, 48.6% of eligible females voted (51 million women)
as opposed to 46.9% of eligible men voted (45.1 million men.) The majority,
both in proportion and number of eligible voters, is held by women.
The question is: who are women voting for?
According to the National Women’s Political Caucus, women occupy 20 seats in the US Senate; men hold 80. Women hold 79
(17.9%) seats in the House of Representatives; men hold 356 seats. There are currently 5 female governors in the
United States; 45 male governors. As of 2013,
there are 1,779 (24.1%) representatives in state legislatures who are women.
And, 12 of the mayors of the 100 largest cities in the United States are
female. The simple answer to the
question: who are women electing? Men.
Women are hugely underrepresented in the
Fourth Estate which has a deleterious effect on women with political
aspirations. Studies conducted by the Women’s Media Center found that women comprise
between 35% and 40% of reporters and on camera commentators in four studied
areas: broadcast news, print, internet news and wire services. When women report on issues they’re more
likely to deal with health and lifestyle issues and less likely to report or
comment on scientific, criminal justice or political topics. Women are also less likely to be guests or
contributors on Sunday TV talk shows which largely deal with political
topics. Women make up only 14% of those
interviewed and 29% of round table guests.
The scarcity of women both behind and in
front of the cameras that daily broadcast news and political commentary is
problematic, but equally troublesome is what women say -- or don’t say -- when they do appear. When commenting on the legitimacy of female
candidates, women in the media often espouse a slightly updated version of the
anti-suffragettes argument. They
emphasize the importance of family values and traditional marriage. They lament
the negative impact the election will have on the female candidate’s children.
They use code words to discuss female candidates’ personalities: emotionally volatile, chatty, shrill or
mannish.
One of the most
prominent women in politics, Hillary Clinton, is often criticized, by women in
the media, for her decisions regarding her personal appearance. During her tenure as Secretary of State,
there were regular debates about whether or not she should wear makeup, glasses
or a ponytail. Now, when a 2016 run
seems imminent, the Hillary Project, an anti-Clinton PAC with several
high-ranking female contributors, has released an online game that “allows
viewers to virtually slap the former secretary of state across the face.” (Chozick
2014) This type of vitriol is deeply disturbing. There’s a palpable sense that
the goal is not to defeat her politically but to humiliate her publically.
Although acceptable behavior for women has undoubtedly
changed, the roles remain defined: woman’s domain is hearth and home; the man
still considered a better fit for the world outside the home. The aforementioned commentaries, by women in
the media, about a politically powerful woman are further examples of Objects
acting against their own social groups’ best interests. Women in positions of political power are
scarce; all women would benefit from greater representation in the legislative
process.
The scarcity of women in legislative
positions means that women’s issues are not presented with the frequency that
they should. When they are presented,
they may not be treated appropriately, as was the case in 2012 when the House
Committee on Oversight and Reform, chaired by Darrell Issa (R-CA) convened an
all male panel for a hearing on an important --to women-- contraceptive
coverage rule.
The Paycheck Fairness Act, approved by the
House of Representatives in 2009 and blocked by Senate Republicans in 4
subsequent votes, is also an important measure for women as it would address a
substantial gender gap with regard to pay.
Again, in the vein as female anti-suffragettes, some of the most vocal
opponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act are prominent women in the media and in
public office. Phyllis Schafly, a
well-known conservative activist, believes the best way to empower women is to
“improve pay for the men in their lives.” (Woods 2014) Rep. Lynn Jenkins
(R-Kansas) called the bill “condescending” to women and Terri Lynn Land,
currently running as the Republican candidate for Senate in Michigan, said in a
2010 speech, “Well, we all like to be paid more and that’s great, but the
reality is that women have a different lifestyle….and they’re more interested
in flexibility in job than in pay.” (Woods 2014) The very thinly veiled
implication of these statements being that women need flexibility to
successfully fulfill their conventional
role as primary caretakers of children and that they should count on men to take care of any financial shortfall.
It seems even as
women gain power, we subvert it; we are, using Freire’s terminology, “hosts of
the Oppressor” and still suffer from the “fear of freedom” which would allow us
to truly affect systemic change and further the interests of women as a
group. What is necessary for women is to
undergo a perspective transformation. In
essence, the first movement toward true equality is an acknowledgment: we are
still not equal.
The
first step, according to Freire’s pedagogy, is praxis: that combination of
action and reflection which will allow the Object to “understand [the world]
and transform it with [our] labor.” (Freire 125) When the Object understands
the world they will no longer merely feel their needs, as animals do, they will
be able to perceive and reflect upon the “causes
of their needs.” (qtd. in Freire 117) This insight will allow the women to
focus on the societal structures to be transformed. Societal structures can be based in and
enforced by institutions, as the legal prohibition against women’s suffrage
was, or they could be a socially accepted frame of reference: a “structure of
assumptions and expectations that frame an individual’s tacit points of view
and influence their thinking, beliefs and action.” (Taylor 5) This “structure
of assumptions and expectations” proved difficult to transform in the case of
women’s suffrage. Even after the legal
battle was won, many people—women included—believed that women shouldn’t have
the right to vote. The socially accepted
assumption behind the prohibition, that women’s purview is the domestic sphere,
remained; that assumption has been tempered by time and now remains in only in
the fringe.
Now at issue,
equal pay for equal work. Women -- more
often than ever heads of household and/or primary breadwinners, are disproportionately
clustered in minimum wage positions, socially guided toward “female-typed occupations—such as teaching or
nursing” all of which require a college
degree (Dwyer 34) and “have fewer options in the low-education labor market
than do men “ (Dwyer 32) -- feel our need. And, as women involved in the fight
for suffrage did, modern women are beginning to identify and reflect
upon the causes of their own oppression and to act against them. While women, as yet, lack the political clout
to affect policy change regarding unequal pay, we are addressing our disadvantaged position by direct action.
Women are
developing a more critical world view by, using Mezirow’s definition, learning
“how to negotiate and act upon our own purposes, values, feelings and meanings
rather than those we have uncritically assimilated from others.” (qtd. in
Taylor 5) The creation of the virtual
face-slapping game by the Hillary Project led to a 40% uptick in web traffic
and online contributions to Ready for Clinton, a “super PAC” that supports a
Clinton candidacy. Jen Bluestein, a
political strategist who formerly ran communications at Emily’s List -- a
political action committee that backs female candidates who support abortion
rights -- said, “instead of fearing sexist attacks, we wait gleefully for the
next one.” (Chozick 2014) She attributes much of the record-breaking
fundraising in this election cycle to gender charged attacks such as referring
to Wendy Davis, a Democratic candidate for Texas Governor, as Abortion Barbie
or calling Alison Lundergran Grimes, a Senate candidate from Kentucky, an
“empty dress.” (Chozick 2014) Increasing donations to organizations that
support women with political aspirations reveals the burgeoning opinion, by
both men and women, that women deserve a greater role in the political process.
Women are further addressing equal pay
disparity by becoming an increasing majority of college students. More education will equal better jobs. Prohibitions will be lifted and, as more women
engage in the process, social expectations will change; the paradigm will shift
in favor of women. Like the women who
fought for their right to vote, modern women will struggle to improve their
conditions in the workplace. It will be an incremental struggle of victories
and setbacks. A process: lessons learned, reflected upon and
talked about; plans will be implemented and discarded, revised and redone. Freire’s
theory of pedagogy is best viewed as a cycle rather than a linear model with a
beginning, middle and end. The
very notion that learning ends is antithetical to Freire’s theory as the
determined end would produce a new static system and static systems resist
change. The success of the
women’s movement is dependent upon and reflective of the basic tenets of
Freire’s pedagogy: women must engage in the process and use our own language to
claim what is rightfully ours.
Works Cited
Chozick,
Amy. "Outrage over Sexist Remarks Turns into a Fund-Raising Tool." New
York Times 28 Feb. 2014, New York ed., A1 sec.: 1. Print.
Dwyer,
R. E., R. Hodson, and L. Mccloud. "Gender, Debt, and Dropping Out of
College." Gender & Society 27.1 (2013): 30-55. Print.
Kendrick
Johnson, Helen. "The Suffrage Menace." Editorial. New York Times
23 May 1915: n. pag. Query.nytimes.com. New York Times. Web. 3 Apr.
2014.
Macedo,
Donaldo. "Introduction." In Paolo Freire. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York:
Continuum, 2000. 30. Print.
Taylor,
Edward W. "Transformative Learning Theory." New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education 2008.119 (2008): 5-15. Print.
Woods,
Ashley. "GOP Senate Candidate Argues She Isn't Waging a War on Women
Because She's a Woman." Editorial. Huffington Post, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 23
Apr. 2014.
