Life in the Empire
Pronouns: A Theory of Atomic Linguistics
On the first RBC forum there was a discussion about pronouns. Pan joined the forum after I had been banned and posted to that topic, but of course I was no longer there and wasn't able to respond. Had I still been around, this is the sentence I would have responded to (my login there was Folkie):
Pan wrote: "However, though our society presents maleness as normative behavior, I do not accept Folkie's premise that "he" is a gender neutral pronoun. I understand the desire not to be labeled "she" or "it" but insisting upon "he" reinforces the patriarchal valuing of all things male."
First of all, I had not said that "he" was a gender neutral pronoun. I'd said that it was the default pronoun and that until recently it had been used as the traditionally inclusive pronoun. That began to change when feminists noticed that although it was theoretically supposed to be inclusive, it reality it excluded females.
In order for society to present something as normative, it is set as the default. Until feminists began to protest, "he" was the generic or default pronoun. When I was in school we were taught that there were three types of pronouns: 1. The masculine or inclusive (examples being "he" or "him"). 2. The feminine or diminutive (examples being "she" or "her". and 3. The neuter or indeterminate (examples being "it" or "that").
The earliest attempts by feminists to replace the generic "he," with either "he and she," or "she," was met with fierce resistance and ridicule by some college professors who rightfully claimed that it wasn't important for them to go out of their way to make specific reference to females when there might be one, none, or at most only a few females in any given class. Only as females began to be admitted in greater numbers to higher education was the concept taken seriously. Although females appear to have made steady gains in U.S. higher education since 1900, by the 1960s they were still no more than 20% of those receiving professional degrees.
In the '70s, females began to resent the fact that feminine honorifics like "Mrs." and "Miss" were based upon the female's marital status, while the masculine honorific, "Mr." was the same for both married and unmarried males. If it was no longer necessary for females to be referred to in terms of their sexual availability (already taken in marriage or not), then why was it necessary for females to be referred to in terms of sex at all? Why couldn't everyone have become "Mr." without regard to marital status or sex?
The same thing happened with pronouns. Upon recognizing that the traditionally inclusive "he" wasn't truly inclusive, feminists began to insist that the exclusive or diminutive pronouns be used in combination with the traditionally inclusive pronouns, to denote that females were actually present ("he and she" or "she and he"), or that the diminutive form ("she") be used as the generic. Both usages have become common. As with honorifics, there was no consideration given to the possibility of the traditionally inclusive pronoun ("he") being used so that it was actually inclusive.
Once a society presents something as the normative or default status, any other status becomes deviant by definition. In The Creation of Patriarchy, Prof. Gerda Lerner explained that you can't discriminate against a group unless you have a way to distinguish them from other groups. Pronouns and honorifics are the means by which patriarchy distinguishes between males and females when they are not present and visible, so as to ensure that they are not accorded equal treatment. Without the ability to distinguish females from males at all times and in all circumstances, there could be too many incidents of accidental equality for male supremacy to remain tenable.
It is indisputable that we are a patriarchal society and that females are discriminated against. When groups are asked to grade essays, the same essays are consistently given higher grades by both males and females when they appear to have been written by a male than when they appear to have been written by a female. It only takes a single indicator such as a traditionally masculine or feminine name, honorific, or pronoun, to trigger disparate treatment. It is not the quality of the writing, but the knowledge (or assumption) about the writer's sex, that controls how the writing is evaluated.
There's no rocket science involved in equality. There is more equality in a society where people are treated equally at least some of the time, than in a society where people are never treated equally, even if total equality is not achievable. What harm could it possibly do to society if all essay questions had to be graded without any gender role identifiers attached to them, so that only the quality of the writing could be judged? Would patriarchy be destroyed? Would civilization fall? My theory is yes, they would.
But before I explain why I think that pronomial fusion could save the planet as surely as atomic fission could destroy it, I want to briefly review the potential effects of pronouns on biological sex and on socially constructed gender roles. It goes without saying that there would be no physical changes to an individual or group if they were referred to differently. But there certainly could be enormous social and cultural changes if a patriarchal society was less able to distinguish between males and females and therefore less able to discriminate based on sex. For a system to be considered totalitarian, it must have absolute power, and anything that diminishes that power changes the nature of the system. Only the ability to distinguish between the sexes at all times, makes it possible for a patriarchal society to discriminate on the basis of sex at all times. So why do those who claim to be seeking a more egalitarian society, insist on retaining the linguistic indicators that make totalitarian patriarchy possible?
A quick google turned up an online copy of Douglas Hofstadter's essay, "A Person Paper on Purity in Language." Hofstadter's analogy makes it perfectly clear that sex-based pronouns are no more necessary or rational than race-based pronouns. I've used the analogy of African-Americans in the U.S. in a similar way. Imagine if, instead of adult black males taking offense at being called, "boy," they had said that while they didn't want to be called "boy" any more, they also didn't want to be called "Mister" or "Sir," since those terms were used to refer to white males and they didn't want to become invisible or lose their black identity, so they had insisted that a new term be invented, such as "Bister" or "Bir," to replace the world "boy" when used to refer to adult black males. Absurd, isn't it? Yet that's exactly what feminists did with "Ms."
I'm a philosophical anti-civilizationist. Although I do hypocritically avail myself of many benefits of civilization, I know their true cost in the despoliation of the planet. I believe that humanity and our habitat have been brought to the brink of extinction by the patriarchal concept of property that commodifies both people and things. More than 5,000 years of patriarchy and civilization have made both appear to be inevitable and invincible. But a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Animal rights and environmental activists have suggested that one way to revalue plants and animals would be to refer to them as living things rather than as objects, that is, as "he" and "she," rather than as "it." The way in which we refer to things is a good indicator of how much we value them. To the extent that we can eliminate unnecessary divisiveness, we create unity.
So back to Pan's statement, "I understand the desire not to be labeled "she" or "it" but insisting upon "he" reinforces the patriarchal valuing of all things male."
That doesn't leave much in the way of options. Perhaps a new term should be invented so that it can be used solely to refer to gender role deviates? Now that there are more female doctors, lawyers, and engineers, should we call them doctoresses, lawyeresses, and enginerettes, so as not to reinforce the patriarchal valuing of all things male?
Pronouns, in my experience, are the atomic forces that bind together the molecules of patriarchy. Without a way to reference a person's genital status every time we reference a person, patriarchy would begin to lose the ability to discriminate against all females on the basis of sex at all times. Without that ability, the entire structure would crumble. Not all at once, but little by little as discrimination became more and more difficult.
If an injury to one is an injury to all, then an insult to one is an insult to all. I have no fears whatsoever that the human sex drive might diminish without gender roles. It is one of the strongest forces in our lives, it existed long before gender roles were imagined, and if we can avert the destruction of the planet, it will continue long after gender roles have disappeared. There would be no difficulty in referencing an individual's sex when it was necessary to do so, as we could simply say, "He is female," or "he is male." But we would no longer be forced to refer to people in terms of genital status when it was not necessary, so we would no longer have to perpetuate patriarchy by distinguishing between people on the basis of sex every time we referred to them.
As a native English speaker first learning Spanish, I thought it absurd that inanimate objects had to be identified as either male or female to accomodate the language structure. The English language has the convenience of being able to refer to inanimate objects without regard to sex. Our coffee mugs aren't feminine and our champagne glasses aren't masculine, they're just cups and glasses.
I grew up in the nuclear age. For most of my life I've been aware that at any moment, I and everyone around me for miles, could be killed by a single bomb that would not distinguish on the basis of sex, race, age, or any other factor. Since we're likely to die equally, why shouldn't we live equally? But I believe that it is patriarchy, the subjugation of females by males, that prevents us from becoming an ecologically viable species able to control our reproductive rate in accordance with available resources and have a sustainable lifestyle without periodic overpopulation peaks and wars. So I believe that if we can abolish patriarchy, we would not be facing the inevitable extinction common to all ecologically nonviable species. If I am correct, and if pronouns really are the binding force holding patriarchy together, we might really have a chance.
Of course I could be wrong. It is possible that we could eliminate sex-based pronouns and patriarchy might continue just as before. I know what we might gain if I'm right. Can you tell me what we might lose if I'm wrong?
Pan wrote: "However, though our society presents maleness as normative behavior, I do not accept Folkie's premise that "he" is a gender neutral pronoun. I understand the desire not to be labeled "she" or "it" but insisting upon "he" reinforces the patriarchal valuing of all things male."
First of all, I had not said that "he" was a gender neutral pronoun. I'd said that it was the default pronoun and that until recently it had been used as the traditionally inclusive pronoun. That began to change when feminists noticed that although it was theoretically supposed to be inclusive, it reality it excluded females.
In order for society to present something as normative, it is set as the default. Until feminists began to protest, "he" was the generic or default pronoun. When I was in school we were taught that there were three types of pronouns: 1. The masculine or inclusive (examples being "he" or "him"). 2. The feminine or diminutive (examples being "she" or "her". and 3. The neuter or indeterminate (examples being "it" or "that").
The earliest attempts by feminists to replace the generic "he," with either "he and she," or "she," was met with fierce resistance and ridicule by some college professors who rightfully claimed that it wasn't important for them to go out of their way to make specific reference to females when there might be one, none, or at most only a few females in any given class. Only as females began to be admitted in greater numbers to higher education was the concept taken seriously. Although females appear to have made steady gains in U.S. higher education since 1900, by the 1960s they were still no more than 20% of those receiving professional degrees.
In the '70s, females began to resent the fact that feminine honorifics like "Mrs." and "Miss" were based upon the female's marital status, while the masculine honorific, "Mr." was the same for both married and unmarried males. If it was no longer necessary for females to be referred to in terms of their sexual availability (already taken in marriage or not), then why was it necessary for females to be referred to in terms of sex at all? Why couldn't everyone have become "Mr." without regard to marital status or sex?
The same thing happened with pronouns. Upon recognizing that the traditionally inclusive "he" wasn't truly inclusive, feminists began to insist that the exclusive or diminutive pronouns be used in combination with the traditionally inclusive pronouns, to denote that females were actually present ("he and she" or "she and he"), or that the diminutive form ("she") be used as the generic. Both usages have become common. As with honorifics, there was no consideration given to the possibility of the traditionally inclusive pronoun ("he") being used so that it was actually inclusive.
Once a society presents something as the normative or default status, any other status becomes deviant by definition. In The Creation of Patriarchy, Prof. Gerda Lerner explained that you can't discriminate against a group unless you have a way to distinguish them from other groups. Pronouns and honorifics are the means by which patriarchy distinguishes between males and females when they are not present and visible, so as to ensure that they are not accorded equal treatment. Without the ability to distinguish females from males at all times and in all circumstances, there could be too many incidents of accidental equality for male supremacy to remain tenable.
It is indisputable that we are a patriarchal society and that females are discriminated against. When groups are asked to grade essays, the same essays are consistently given higher grades by both males and females when they appear to have been written by a male than when they appear to have been written by a female. It only takes a single indicator such as a traditionally masculine or feminine name, honorific, or pronoun, to trigger disparate treatment. It is not the quality of the writing, but the knowledge (or assumption) about the writer's sex, that controls how the writing is evaluated.
There's no rocket science involved in equality. There is more equality in a society where people are treated equally at least some of the time, than in a society where people are never treated equally, even if total equality is not achievable. What harm could it possibly do to society if all essay questions had to be graded without any gender role identifiers attached to them, so that only the quality of the writing could be judged? Would patriarchy be destroyed? Would civilization fall? My theory is yes, they would.
But before I explain why I think that pronomial fusion could save the planet as surely as atomic fission could destroy it, I want to briefly review the potential effects of pronouns on biological sex and on socially constructed gender roles. It goes without saying that there would be no physical changes to an individual or group if they were referred to differently. But there certainly could be enormous social and cultural changes if a patriarchal society was less able to distinguish between males and females and therefore less able to discriminate based on sex. For a system to be considered totalitarian, it must have absolute power, and anything that diminishes that power changes the nature of the system. Only the ability to distinguish between the sexes at all times, makes it possible for a patriarchal society to discriminate on the basis of sex at all times. So why do those who claim to be seeking a more egalitarian society, insist on retaining the linguistic indicators that make totalitarian patriarchy possible?
A quick google turned up an online copy of Douglas Hofstadter's essay, "A Person Paper on Purity in Language." Hofstadter's analogy makes it perfectly clear that sex-based pronouns are no more necessary or rational than race-based pronouns. I've used the analogy of African-Americans in the U.S. in a similar way. Imagine if, instead of adult black males taking offense at being called, "boy," they had said that while they didn't want to be called "boy" any more, they also didn't want to be called "Mister" or "Sir," since those terms were used to refer to white males and they didn't want to become invisible or lose their black identity, so they had insisted that a new term be invented, such as "Bister" or "Bir," to replace the world "boy" when used to refer to adult black males. Absurd, isn't it? Yet that's exactly what feminists did with "Ms."
I'm a philosophical anti-civilizationist. Although I do hypocritically avail myself of many benefits of civilization, I know their true cost in the despoliation of the planet. I believe that humanity and our habitat have been brought to the brink of extinction by the patriarchal concept of property that commodifies both people and things. More than 5,000 years of patriarchy and civilization have made both appear to be inevitable and invincible. But a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Animal rights and environmental activists have suggested that one way to revalue plants and animals would be to refer to them as living things rather than as objects, that is, as "he" and "she," rather than as "it." The way in which we refer to things is a good indicator of how much we value them. To the extent that we can eliminate unnecessary divisiveness, we create unity.
So back to Pan's statement, "I understand the desire not to be labeled "she" or "it" but insisting upon "he" reinforces the patriarchal valuing of all things male."
That doesn't leave much in the way of options. Perhaps a new term should be invented so that it can be used solely to refer to gender role deviates? Now that there are more female doctors, lawyers, and engineers, should we call them doctoresses, lawyeresses, and enginerettes, so as not to reinforce the patriarchal valuing of all things male?
Pronouns, in my experience, are the atomic forces that bind together the molecules of patriarchy. Without a way to reference a person's genital status every time we reference a person, patriarchy would begin to lose the ability to discriminate against all females on the basis of sex at all times. Without that ability, the entire structure would crumble. Not all at once, but little by little as discrimination became more and more difficult.
If an injury to one is an injury to all, then an insult to one is an insult to all. I have no fears whatsoever that the human sex drive might diminish without gender roles. It is one of the strongest forces in our lives, it existed long before gender roles were imagined, and if we can avert the destruction of the planet, it will continue long after gender roles have disappeared. There would be no difficulty in referencing an individual's sex when it was necessary to do so, as we could simply say, "He is female," or "he is male." But we would no longer be forced to refer to people in terms of genital status when it was not necessary, so we would no longer have to perpetuate patriarchy by distinguishing between people on the basis of sex every time we referred to them.
As a native English speaker first learning Spanish, I thought it absurd that inanimate objects had to be identified as either male or female to accomodate the language structure. The English language has the convenience of being able to refer to inanimate objects without regard to sex. Our coffee mugs aren't feminine and our champagne glasses aren't masculine, they're just cups and glasses.
I grew up in the nuclear age. For most of my life I've been aware that at any moment, I and everyone around me for miles, could be killed by a single bomb that would not distinguish on the basis of sex, race, age, or any other factor. Since we're likely to die equally, why shouldn't we live equally? But I believe that it is patriarchy, the subjugation of females by males, that prevents us from becoming an ecologically viable species able to control our reproductive rate in accordance with available resources and have a sustainable lifestyle without periodic overpopulation peaks and wars. So I believe that if we can abolish patriarchy, we would not be facing the inevitable extinction common to all ecologically nonviable species. If I am correct, and if pronouns really are the binding force holding patriarchy together, we might really have a chance.
Of course I could be wrong. It is possible that we could eliminate sex-based pronouns and patriarchy might continue just as before. I know what we might gain if I'm right. Can you tell me what we might lose if I'm wrong?
Views: 99
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by pan on
-
As someone who has devoted his life to the art of dance, non-verbal communication and ritual structures, I have a deep and almost visceral response to the primary assumption that Structuralism and Post-Structuralism are reliant upon - that human thought is based entirely upon the structure of language; that the Word dictates Thought dictates Social Structure dictates Self. Without denying the power of the Word I aver that there is more than the Word. As Martha Graham wrote: if it could be written it wouldn't have to be danced.
Moore & Yamamoto in Beyond Words put forth the thesis that the primary extension system of humans isn't the Word, rather it is movement. I believe this is somewhat limited as it ignores Sound. The first way parents communicate to their child is through the sound of their voice and through the movement of their (and their baby's) bodies This level of communication is so basic that most of us, especially in Western culture that conceives the brain as being separate from the body, take it for granted and don't consider the impact it has upon us.
We learn gender-specified movement not through Word but through movement. Yes, there are those verbal exhortations to “sit like a lady” and derisions aimed at males with limp wrists but those aren’t primary teaching functions, they are only for exceptions when an individual transgresses the gender-specified movement code that has been learned through movement.
My genetic structure has made it easier for me to transgress movement taboo. I am a large mesomorph; my body reads male in our society. Therefore the risks of utilizing movement that reads female are significantly less. In Susan Bordo’s terms from her Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body, since my body is Rock I am free to move like a Leaner.
As a body moving through space I present a gender paradox. For me as a performer this creates a unique power on stage. However, this is not without cost. A Classical Chinese dancer gave up on her efforts to develop a stage partnership with me after she exclaimed “you don’t dance like a man, you dance like a woman!”
These gender-specified movement archetypes exert a powerful influence that is hard to escape. One of my students an Hispanic, gay, 23 year old male who enjoys donning pumps and a red dress in drag culture, is significantly blocked in his growth as a dancer and, indeed, as a fully realized human because of his desire (need?) to pass in straight society – my friend the Classical Chinese dancer would definitely say that he dances like a man.
I guess my point is this: while the Word exerts tremendous power over the limitations and taboos created by our Social Constructs, the Word isn’t the only structure that shapes our reality. The semiosis of hegemony is multi-layered and extremely resistant to efforts at reform. Removing the masculine/feminine language of Romance Languages may be a positive step but it is not the only one required.
-
-
P.S. I don't think it is coincidental that the only academic disciplines where one can find serious explorations into the experience and implied semiotics of embodying a body are Gender and Queer Studies.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark on
-
"Removing the masculine/feminine language of Romance Languages may be a positive step but it is not the only one required."
Agreed, Pan, but all journeys begin with a single step. Indeed, without that first step, the rest of the journey cannot take place.
Removing the language barrier would remove the necessity of determining a person's sex before interacting with them in any way. Infants could begin to be treated equally from the moment that they are born. Dance could become freer as people were freed from thinking in terms of stereotypes. Maybe I don't want to dance like a "man" or a "woman"--maybe I want to dance like a snake, a deer, or a willow tree.
I put the words man and woman in quotes because they are social rather than scientific categories and the definition of what it is to act like a man or a woman differs from one culture to another. The arts can just as easily be used to demolish stereotypes as to perpetuate them. People are considered to be male or female in patriarchal cultures. Since biology does not adhere to this dichotomy, intersex infants are usually genitally mutilated soon after birth so that they will appear to be either male or female. Once the sex determination has been made or surgically constructed, the gender role is assigned and the infants have to learn to act in accordance with their assigned gender role. Acting is when we pretend to be something that we're not. If we are something, that's just what we are and we don't have to learn it. Metabolisms differ and some newborns are more active and energetic than others. This is just how they are and they don't have to be taught to be that way. Patriarchal gender roles will encourage this natural energy in infants deemed to be males, and discourage it in infants deemed to be females, because patriarchy takes all human traits and labels them either masculine or feminine and therefore appropriate to only one gender role and not the other.
A male doesn't "dance like a woman" any more than a female "thinks like a man." We move. We think. All of us have those human abilities to a greater or lesser extent.
Removing the language barriers to human self-determination and fulfillment is not the only step required, but it appears to me to be the first and therefore the most necessary one.
-
-
Just got this email Ms. Medusa and i are restaging a work of ours that deals with the hegemonic gender roles, both male and female, in a dystopic suburban, Cold War setting that would work well there but the cast is fairly large (10) and the Uni has cut travel/faculty development funds (while increasing the amount of creative/scholarship that is required of tenure-line faculty (that would be Ms. Medusa).
CFP: Women and Theatre Program
ATHE 2010
Los Angeles, CA August 3-6
This past summer, members of the WTP gathered at Teatro Pregones in the Bronx for our 29th annual conference: The Balancing Act of Innovation: War, Change, and Hope. Our membership presented papers, performances, roundtables and workshops responding to this theme--conversations that were continued and expanded the following days at ATHE. Building on this collaborative work, the WTP invites session proposals for ATHE’s 2010 conference: Theatre Alive: Theatre, Media and Survival. In keeping with the activist and innovative nature of our work, and with the conference theme, we encourage you to explore the ways in which feminist theatre and performance survives during times of challenge and change. Inventive and groundbreaking new modes of sharing and exchanging information are encouraged.
Some topics suggested by our membership include:
-The survival or extinction of feminist performance
-Dangerous Liaisons: marriage equality, California and Proposition 8
-Mediated Bodies: how the body is shaped in different mediums
-Feminist & activist approaches to pedagogy—keeping feminism alive in the classroom
-Using race, class, ethnicity, gender & sexual orientation to subvert hegemonic norms
-The ways in which we use technology, digital media, and the internet in performance
SUBMISSION PROCESS: Assemble a session proposal and list of participants. You are welcome to select from a variety of formats: panels, roundtables, performances, etc. Submissions for WTP-sponsored sessions should be made on-line at the ATHE website at www.athe.org by NOVEMBER 1, 2009. Only complete sessions can be submitted. If you have an individual paper and are looking to form a panel, please contact Natka at nbianchini@loyola.edu or put a query out on the WTP listserv. Further information on WTP, its membership and events, and the listserv, can be accessed at http://www.athe.org/wtp/.
Feel free to contact me with any questions,
Natka Bianchini
Assistant Professor of Theatre
Department of Fine Arts
Loyola University Maryland
Baltimore MD 21210
410-617-2213
nbianchini@loyola.edu
-
-
Mainstream feminism doesn't subvert hegemonic gender role norms, it supports and perpetuates them.
Patriarchy needs to be able to distinguish between males and females at all times in order to be able to identify females at all times so that females can be discriminated against at all times.
Mainstream feminism insists that females need to be identifiable as females at all times in order to retain their identity as "not males," despite the fact that by identifying females as "not males" rather than as humans, mainstream feminism is perpetuating patriarchy.
I'd love to see a play where all the main characters were androgenous and indistinguishable by sex. They could be a group formed to work on a social problem like racism or pollution. Every time they have to interact with mainstream society they run into barriers:
Pat: Good morning, Councilmember Johnson, I'm Pat Smith and my colleague Chris Jones and I are here to present you with an innovative program our group has developed that can reduce pollution in our community.
Johnson: Good morning, uh, is it Mister or Ms. Smith?
Pat: Just call me Pat, Councilmember. Actually, the reason we made an appointment to see you rather than just sending an email, is that your website requires constituents to select a gender-related honorific just as Mr., Miss, Mrs., or Ms., and we'd prefer not to. Would you be willing to have your staff read our proposal and, if you think if is workable, would you present it to the council?
Johnson: Of course, m..., uh, Pat, I'll be happy to have my staff study your proposal. We have a longstanding problem with pollution in this town and we always appreciate input from the community. Is your group concerned only with environmental problems or is it a member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual Alliance?
Chris: We're the equivalent of a very small think tank, Councilmember. Although we operate independently, we are always happy to provide any solutions we find to all groups and community members concerned with such issues. I don't think our personal preferences relate to the pollution problem in any way, do you?
Johnson: Uh, you're quite right, Chris. I'll have my secretary, Candy, and my Chief of Staff, Stud, show you to the door, and you can be assured that we'll take your proposal very sexually, uh, I mean seriously.
etc.
Another scene might show a typical local government or business association meeting where all the males shake hands with each other and all the females hug and kiss everyone. When the androgenous group enters, the room freezes, as nobody is sure whether to shake hands with them or hug and kiss them, and in their uncertainty, nobody does either one.
Casting might be difficult even though many people are rather androgenous, because you'd have to find some who would be willing to relinquish their gender role indicators for a half hour or so onstage. I don't know if there are many actors who would endanger their careers and their place in society by taking a risk like that. Switching gender roles, or mixing-and-matching elements of one gender role with another, indicate versatility and are relatively risk free by comparison.
-
-
Our work takes the other tactic: showing the rigid roles- how, even as individuals strive to go beyond those narrow definitions, they reinforce those roles in others - and the rather bleak result of the reinforcement of the hegemonic structure. Since western theatre-goers have an expectation for Aristotelian rise and fall that is inherently based in conflict it is much easier to present something "palatable" to the standard audience that is dystopian rather than utopian in its outlook.
My work that is more ritual based - more akin to Sanskrit Drama that presents a state of being rather than an individual's journey towards change, is much more difficult for typical audience members to accept.
I have only a passing knowledge of Augusto Boal's Theatre of the Oppressed.. It looks like a very interesting model to draw inspiration from.
-
-
Thanks for the link, Pan. The Theater of the Oppressed, having achieved a great deal of political and social success, is a bona fide way to raise consciousness and bring about change, rather than mere commentary. But by its nature, I think that it would only rarely be eligible for institutional support or funding, and then only in countries which already have a relatively high level of social and political consciousness.
-
-
In my moments of feeling sorry for myself because I have not had an easy career trajectory, I remind myself that it would be rather arrogant or at least naive to expect an institution funded by the State to fully support my work which, if fully realized, directly confronts the legitimacy of the State by encouraging critical awareness rather than mindless submission.
I guess the less than whole-hearted welcome I have received from academia (a former Chair said that the exact same things that made me attractive as a job candidate made me threatening as a colleague) is an indication that I have been doing the right thing all along.
-
Permalink Reply by waldopaper on
-
yrrg... i just read a batch o stuff... where a colleague has beaten "pronoun reference" into their heads... so everything is "his or her" and "he or she" or "him or her" which i regard as cumbersome and lame. MY "pronoun reference" problem goes like this:
"Bill went to Bob's house. He said that his father did not think his cooking was good enough for his friends to eat at his house. He would have to put his skillet away and give him some money so he could take his friend out to his favorite restaurant so he would not make him feel like he was at home when he cooked for himself."
Now substitute "Barb" for "Bob" and "his or her" or him or her" for every "he" or his" or "him" and you'll see what I mean. The problem is not pronoun reference,,, the problem is that we think (and write) like fucking sausages. Alles hat ein endung... nur die Wurst hat zwei.
Nobody gives a tweet if we knock the pyramid hierarchy... unless one of the little weasels gets confused and rats up the org chart that we are teaching "socialism" or "rheumatism" or anything that isn't "subject appropriate." Since I am working for about $3 an hour, I aint listening to any crappola this sem anyway. "Patriarchy" is waaaaayyy to abstract. I'm dealing with people freaking out about "you-know-who" buying cigarettes with food stamps... while the trillion$ pissed down the phony war-hole remains invisible.
It's all about turning off your brain and doing your work.
-
-
We're taught to use pronouns because the repetitive use of proper names is awkward. But people like their names. And it clarifies references to use names instead of pronouns. If we're talking about Bill and Barb and Bob, it would be better for both writers and readers if we used their names instead of pronouns. The only time a pronoun should be used is when a person's name has already been mentioned in a sentence and there is no possible confusion about who is being referenced, in which case the pronoun can be the traditionally inclusive "he," . For example:
Bob invited Bill and Barb to his house for dinner. Bill brought a bottle of wine and Barb brought a cake he had baked.
Now let's change Barb's name to Pat, a name that could refer to either a male or a female. In that case the pronoun in the second sentence would clearly refer to Pat, but would not indicate Pat's sex. Unless it is necessary to the plot, there should be no need to reference a person's sex every time they are mentioned. If there is a need to mention their sex, it should be done explicitly, as it will register with the reader and will not need to be repeated. The first thing we are taught is to ascertain the sex of others, whether they are people we are dealing with in real life or just characters in a book.
If you're working for $3 an hour, the wee spiders lucky enough to get jobs will probably be working for thirty cents an hour. It really doesn't matter to the oligarchy if workers blame immigrants, the "other" sex, or alien lizards, as long as they don't blame the people causing the problem.
I posted this comment on AlterNet a little while ago. The article was about a worker who went postal. I responded to a comment that included the statement in quotes:
Why Jim Badasci 'Went Postal'
Those poor workers in India!
Posted by: folkie on Sep 28, 2009 2:30 PM
Not only do they have to do our outsourced jobs for a fraction of what we used to earn, but then their jobs get outsourced when an even cheaper labor supply can be found in Burma or we can install a right-wing dictator to ensure us an even cheaper labor force in Honduras.
"Angry workers beat to death a human resources vice president after he laid off 42 employees at an auto-parts manufacturing company in southern India..."
Think about it. Southern India? They don't have any Mexicans to blame. Very few people try to sneak into India without a visa. So they can't blame people worse off than themselves because there aren't any. Without scapegoats and media campaigns to confuse them, naturally they turn against the bosses causing the problem.
Although retired now, I've worked in so many hostile environments that I always applaud the shooter when somebody goes postal. In fact, I worry about meeting my maker and not having a reasonable excuse for why I didn't do the same. It may seem like a small thing, but when somebody shoots up the workplace that made their life hell, they are making the world a better place for everyone and can die with a clear conscience.
-
-
Suicide count rises to 24 at France Telecom
On Monday morning, another employee of France Telecom killed himself, bringing the number of suicides at France's biggest telecom company to 24 in just over 18 months. The company recently began talks with unions to deal with the problem.
France Telecom has adopted a form of 'lean and mean', authoritarian management in which employees are treated as movable parts of a big machine. The consequences of this form of mismanagement are a demoralised workforce, and this in turn is not only the backdrop to the suicides, but guarantees a deteriorating service to the public.
------------------
Obviously the French unions aren't as skilled at negotiations as the unions in India.
About
© 2024 Created by waldopaper.
Powered by
