Monday, May 19, 2008

Sexism in the Campaign

As we draw near the end of the Democratic Primary, one of the most prominent discussions over the past few days has been the role of sexism in the campaign. In Today's New York Times, Josi Kantor discusses the issue of sexism and whether or not it played a role in the campaign. In the article, the author quotes a Clinton supporter that suggested it was though the author also quotes Doris Kearns Goodwin, a prominent historian, who suggests that Senator Clinton's errors were tactical and were in no relation to her being a woman. In fact, according to Kearns, being a woman may have helped her raise money for her campaign.

While there have been some remarks that the consensus interpretation would be that they were sexist, to reach the conclusion that those comments hurt or thwarted Senator Clinton's campaign may not be conclusive because a few comments may not be able to lead to the general conclusion; it neglects other factors such as policy differences, race, ideology, and campaign tactics; and, it neglects the personality differences of voters and candidates.

Further complicating discussion of sexism is the projection of sexism that women faced in their own experiences and with some sexist comments that Senator Clinton received during the campaign. I say complicating because any comment that may seem dismissive (e.g. "You're likable enough") is open to interpretation as sexist but somehow "becomes" sexist without context or other available interpretations because some people have had those experience. Or since Senator Obama has less "experience," and there is no discussion of experience of other necessary qualifications, the woman must stand behind and wait for the less qualified male to lead. This is not to diminish the experiences that some women face. But from an interpretation standpoint, the meaning of one act leads to a fixed interpretation of sexism regardless of other cultural factors, political contests, or immediate context. (The pedagogical component of this post is at the end. Please continue to that point.)

While The New York Times articles discusses competing views of sexism in the campaign, a columnist from The Chicago Tribune writes about the worst aspect of sexism in the campaign, the repeated use of the "monster" metaphor, as well as allusions to pop cultural "monsters", to describe Senator Clinton. The explaining paragraphs:
When the doctor checks to see if the patient is still breathing, it's disgust, not compassion, that leaks out between his syllables: "You couldn't kill her with an ax," he sneers.

That patient—the wide-hipped, unwieldy woman at the heart of Dorothy Parker's 1929 short story "Big Blonde"—is a familiar image in books, films, songs, comic books, TV series, video games and, now, politics: The woman as monster. The over-large, over-ambitious, overbearing creature who irritates everybody, the death-defying witch who just won't go away—and who therefore must be destroyed....

In their landmark book of literary criticism "The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination" (1979), Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar were among the first to spotlight this noxious theme, this isolation and ridicule of powerful women by labeling them crazy, hysterical, perverse, monstrous. To challenge male domination—of the world, or just of oneself—was to be risk being marginalized, ostracized, locked away like Rochester's wife in "Jane Eyre" (1847), the fate that gave the book its title. In real life, behavior that strayed from the polite, demure norm expected of women in the 19th Century was rewarded with psychiatric evaluations and often, imprisonment and death.
The argument is that this is a pervasive cultural theme to demean women and, the assumption is that in this campaign this theme has been used against Senator Clinton to derail her campaign. It is a direct shot against MSNBC and an implied shot at Senator Obama: "that he would publicly condemn the trend of evoking death and destruction when it comes to Clinton. Perhaps, someday, he will." There is no mention of the actions of Senator Clinton as an individual or the tactics of her campaign; just the use of the "woman as monster" in the universal sense and Clinton in that universal.

The article represents the limitations of using popular culture references to discuss political campaigns, especially in regards of arguing across argumentation fields (specified types of argumentation, such as academic disciplines or political contexts). There is an odd interpretive move where, first, the columnist uses literary references that have no bearing on political campaigns to provide context and a major premise, such as the use of a Sylvia Plath poem or Dorothy Parker short story; the use of Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; or the use of D.H. Lawrences Sons and Daughters. Second, she provides a minor premise by referencing the media's use of pop culture to perpetuate the theme "woman as monster." The reader is to conclude that the media types in question tapped in to these references to discuss Senator Clinton and to perpetuate the sexism.

A similar approach is that these references by the media employ "archetypal metaphors," which rely on universal experiences (such as metaphors that discuss light/dark), or metaphors which are so dominant that they control the interpretation of any speech act. Of course, if these are "archetypal metaphors" then you move into the territory where language controls our actions and there may be little agency to break these forms of interpretation.

Further, there is no discussion of intention, elevating the interpreter to conclude sexism without regard of whether or not the rhetor desired the use of sexism. There is also no discussion of how a speaker attempts to connect with the audience by speaking the language of the audience (using popular culture). Only that the audience has the power to decide and must reach a similar conclusion because of the dominance of the metaphor.

I think that the author makes a mistake in two regards. First, she states, "But is it really necessary to order a hit? Isn't it enough just to vote for somebody else?" Throughout her piece, she takes figurative analogies and turns then into literal analogies as no one is calling for an actual "hit." This means she elevates certain metaphors (those that appeal to the "monster" theme) to ground them an in interpretation but rejects the ability to render another interpretation of the comments. Her entire argument reflects nothing more than a straw argument. This leads to a second mistake.

The author's second mistake is to promote her major premise (woman as monster) as an archetypal metaphor or dominant metaphor, removing that view from the context of a political campaign. By arguing across argumentation fields, there is a loss in clarity. For example, the author's use of Andrew Sullivan's zombie quote (28 Days Later, "It's alive") to describe a campaign that "look dead" but was able to "overcome defeats" and come close though not be able to win in the end, as the zombie can never be human again (win the primary). For the Columnist, this is sexism because it applies to her major premise, "woman as monster." When discussed in another context of political campaigns, it loses the interpretive dominance of sexism. While the original metaphor from Sullivan is not very helpful to discuss the Democratic primary, neither is the criticism in the Column.

Finally, and most importantly, if we were to grant the columnist's argument that these are dominant metaphors and that they hinder female candidates, what the is transformative strategy necessary to move beyond these interpretations of "woman as monster?" Is this a case whereby female candidates have become "trapped in language," meaning that there is no way to proceed?

Or is this a case where the Columnist relies on literary works, such as Sylvia Plath, Dorothy Parker, D.H. Lawrence, that speak to a historical context? In this case, we have moved beyond those works and referencing them deflects away from the progress. (See Megs' comments here). By just acknowledging the remarks as being "sexist," then there is no push to transform the remarks or move beyond them.

I would be interested in how some of the bloggers here discuss interpretation and corrective readings with their students, especially in the context of this article and the political campaign.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm a little puzzled about one aspect of your analysis here. Does one need to intend sexism in order to enact it or participate in it? My instinct says no, which still leaves the question of how to interpret in context rather than in the abstract. I'm just not sure that intention plays quite such a central role in determining whether a statement participates in sexism or not.

solon said...

I would argue that intention works as one of many contextual cues for interpretation. It may not be the most important in any given act but it allows for the determination of motive.

On one hand, the intent of a speaker must not be taken too strictly as to deny an audience a chance to provide a new meaning or to challenge the claims of the speaker. On the other hand, denying the role of intention as a viable interpretive tool may allow an audience to take a communicative act in a direction that seems beyond reasonable.

For example, MSNBC just aired a clip of Geraldine Ferraro discussing how Obama perpetuated sexism in the campaign. Her evidence was of Obama's calling Senator Clinton "Annie Oakley" and Obama brushing off his shoulder (the JZ move, as per Megs). Yet, neither of these should be interpreted as being sexist, especially in consideration of intent.

The first is to challenge Senator Clinton's stance on the Second Amendment, which evolved based on her audience. All speakers do this. However, Senator Clinton moved from a gun-regulation position to "I'm a life long hunter too" position, which seems too drastic. (For the sake of this argument, let's set aside the constitutional interpretation of the second amendment and the difference between gun violence in cities and hunting.)

The second, the JZ brush off, seems to be outside of sexism since, as Megs tells me, the lyrics, "If you are feeling like a pimp, Nigga, go and brush your shoulder off. Ladies is pimps too, go on brush your shoulder off," allow for empowerment.

By ignoring content with these communicative acts, Ferraro argues that these are "sexist". However, by examining intention, it would appear that these are not.

This is not that there has been no sexism in the campaign. However, there seems to be a need to bridge the gap between statements and context.

M said...

Solon, I realize our fields are different, so I fully anticipate you to write a lengthy response to the following comment to the following.

I, like Anastasia, am puzzled by your definition/interpretation of intent. I understand your analysis of Ferraro's comments, and even agree with some of it. But it is ONLY your analysis, your interpretation. You hinge you're entire argument on your view of Obama's intent, which, frankly, you can't know. People can and do make sexist, racist, and otherwise offensive comments all the time without intending to, but that doesn't make their actions any less offensive. Think about it in terms of murder 1 versus manslaughter, if you will. A person can be convicted of murdering someone even though there was no intention to murder, yet s/he still committed a crime and must, therefore, be held accountable.

Saying something sexist, as Obama has done several times in the course of his campaign, is only slightly less harmful because he didn't intend it to be sexist. The only person who can ever know Obama's intent is Obama.

solon said...

A few quick refutations before a longer reply. (I am working on a conference paper so this will be short, but it is not curt).

"But it is ONLY your analysis." While this is correct, your comment, "Saying something sexist, as Obama has done several times in the course of his campaign," is only your interpretation as well. This does not lead us very far.

The problem seems to be how we move from an individual understanding to a consensual understanding, or how do we reach an understanding of a comment from the perspective of a universal audience to a particular audience. Rather than just label something as being "sexist" there needs to be some standards to judge this. Intention serves as one contextual approach but this will not work for all audiences.

"People can and do make sexist, racist, and otherwise offensive comments all the time without intending to, but that doesn't make their actions any less offensive."

This is a problem with communication, though it does seem to privilege the audience without a consideration of an individual's experience. In any communicative act, an receiver must decode the message as being offensive. But, the way in which comments have been discussed is to label all things as being "offensive" as if all members of an audience would accept the comments as being offensive. To do this privileges one audience over others. It also relies on the fallacy of composition, where if one person reaches this conclusion, all people in the group would reach that conclusion.

Obama's "Sweetie" comments provide an example as some people found this to be incredible offensive while other audiences, because of culture (some places in the South where this word is in the common language), heard nothing wrong. To say that this is "sexist" deflects away from cultural differences and sets up one type of linguistic standards.

Anonymous said...

Here's my thought:

Yes, Obama sometimes says things that are sexist and they are most likely unintentional. (The sweetie thing grates on me.) Yes, Clinton sometimes says things that are racist and they are most likely unintentional. (I'm talking Hillary, here. I'm not sure that Bill's comments have been without intent.)

We live in a society that is racist and sexist. It's an institutional thing. We all say racist and sexist things and catch ourselves, as these candidates have, and apologize. The fact that Obama has called himself out and made public and private apologies encourages me just as much as it discourages Ferrarro. That Obama is ridiculously transparent about race and increasingly forthright about gender encourages me.

We, as a nation, are neither post-racial or post-feminist, nor are we remotely close. Maybe we've found a candidate that can help lead the way.

Anonymous said...

I agree with megsg-h on this--we live in a society that is sexist and racist at a systemtic level. To me, that means that certain words and phrases convey sexist or racist content regardless of the intention of the individual using it.

I hear in this the suggestion that we stop hearing sexism as sexism so long as we can infer that it wasn't malicious in intent. I can't express to you how strongly I disagree with that sentiment or that as a course of action. In fact, the entire discourse of post-racial etc. strikes me as a move to silence certain voices and that troubles me.

The "sweetie" comment is a good example. The fact that southerners wouldn't take offense at that does not make it any less sexist. The acceptability of the practice of referring to women in the diminutive (I am all the time getting the "baby girl") suggests how deeply ingrained certain sexist attitudes are in southern culture. That isn't the whole story, of course, but it is an important piece. Just because something is culturally acceptable (in this or that region) is not an argument against its being sexist, racist, or otherwise subject to critique.

The Reverend John Todd said...

I don't understand why you ladies are getting your panties in bunches over this.

solon said...

M.

When I heard the "sweetie" comments, I shook my head and muttered that was a foolish statement. The comments did offend the reporter, as well as not receiving an answer to her question...

But, unfortunately, even the acceptance of epithets you discuss vary according to speaker, audience, and context. The best example is Rap music, where an epithet is no longer an epithet.

And, there may be a difference in being post-racial or post-feminist in general and running a post-racial or post feminist campaign. This would mean that a politician would be reaching out for a larger audience and not defining him/herself according to one demographic, no matter how large the demographic group is.

Anonymous said...

Thank God the Reverend John Todd has finally weighed in to clarify this issue.