AGENDA & AGENCY: SOCIETY & THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF FEMINISM
In a certain
place, certain people engaged in certain criminal acts against a certain girl.
For reasons – you can list them as well as I – this would appear to have sparked a national
focus on the status of women, particularly with respect to violent crime
against them. Every media outlet worth its newsprint is suddenly running
articles, special reports, compilations, dedicated segments, campaigns etc.,
all to the effect that women are increasingly victimized in this country.
Various causes are identified, various persons or institutions blamed, even demonized.
Depending on who you listen to, you may believe that one or the other social
trend is leading to this disturbing development.
Unfortunately, a
lot of this coverage is nonsense. It is based in nonsense. The statistics it
relies on are nonsense. The theories it invokes are not, inherently, nonsense –
but their applications here frequently are. I hesitate from entering the debate
on media sensationalism & its business aspect, simply because the feminist
debate is large enough already. Suffice it to say that a vanishingly small
percentage of the coverage is not using recent shocking incidents for its own
purposes. This is unfortunate, but not unexpected. “Social conscience” is
perhaps the weakest of all motivations today, so it would be phenomenally naïve
to expect sincerity or sensitivity in such coverage; everybody & their
uncle will undoubtedly try to use this apparent “national outrage” to push
their own agenda.
This writer is
no saint. When it comes to this topic, though, I enjoy a rather significant
advantage: I have no agenda to fulfill, unless you wish to rank a desire for
intellectual honesty & clarity under that head[1].
What I do have is a substantial lack of patience for both, fuzzy pseudo-logic
& manipulation. I also have a rather clear idea as to what constitutes
feminism, what is causing this “rise” in violence against women, and the challenges
feminism faces today[2].
My core contention is simply this: the current spectacle does great disservice
to the feminist cause.
First, context: men
& women are different. This is biological, evolutionary fact – a nature
factor. It is true across most arenas of human endeavour. A “scientist” who
tries to maintain that gender differences do not exist is ignoring a vast,
established & growing body of evidence – a charlatan. An “advocate” who
tries to maintain that this knowledge should not have ANY bearing on how
society treats men & women is hopelessly idealistic at best, and
dangerously fascist[3] at
worst.
The social roles
of men & women are also different, usually in a manner roughly congruent with
their gender differences. This is a historical & economic fact – a nurture
factor, reflecting the influence of evocative
interaction – an individual is affected by the system, but the system is
determined by the trends in trait distributions across individuals &
populations. One may thus expect these roles to evolve to reflect the relative
impact of these differences, especially given the impact of technology in
reducing their salience in many fields.
Does such
evolution take place? Let us explore with an example: economic division of
labour is a relic with respect to the capacity to ensure survival or welfare of
a person, family or society. Nobody argues today that a woman cannot earn a
living in most occupations the same as a man. Nonetheless, it may be both
economically efficient & socially beneficial for women to be housewives. This
is because, with respect to nurturing & raising children, the evidence still
argues in favour of the mother – as well as for joint family institutions. Many
tensions can arise in this way: institutions arise for one purpose, but can
come to fulfill many roles, and some of these roles may outlive the original rationale.
Most occupations & social spaces may not be “unsafe” for women any more
(not that the current media coverage would agree) but women retain an evolutionary
edge as caregivers[4].
The first source
of this tension is the difference in timescales: species are affected by their
evolution, as we saw, on geological timescales, but societal evolution is far
from linear – agonizingly slow for most of the time, but increasingly rapid
once underway, yet prone to relapse or reactionary pressures. Technology can also
catalyse sweeping social changes, so societal evolution comes in leaps &
bounds. Large periods of time can thus be “transition periods”, where society
is adjusting to the net impact of evolutionary characteristics &
technological developments.
The second
source of this tension lies in a key difference between biological &
societal evolution. Survival of the species is about survival of the gene pool
(this is the leading sociobiological interpretation of altruism), which means
there is no personal stake or payback from the process. Societal evolution,
however, is about survival of institutions. Institutions are merely interactions
between individuals in defined power structures, so there are significant
personal consequences – i.e. those who are strongest in a given institution
also have the strongest incentives to maintain it. This means that societal
evolution is neither automatic nor inevitable – it can be (and is) resisted, by
numerous powerful reactionary elements. Not till their power is suitably
compromised can a new social structure replace the old one as the norm, although
new structures can (and do) exist in defiance of norms long before they are
accepted. Thus, the timescale of societal evolution also proceeds in leaps
& bounds because a particular change can be resisted for a long time before
finally achieving a breakthrough – and even after it is entrenched, still faces
challenges from elements of the old order.
Where, then,
does one site feminism in this complex of biological differences, societal
transitions, institutional reactions, all feeding into a recursive loop of
evocative interaction?
Answer: In the
human rights discourse. My knowledge of the development of the feminist
movement is limited, but that is the only logical position it can occupy today.
Feminism is not the belief that men & women are the same. It is not the proposition
that social roles should be congruent to gender differences. It is not even the
argument that men & women should be treated the same in all respects. It is
a very specific claim to a very specific right: Agency. Feminism is nothing
more (or less – the claim is, given historical context, phenomenally audacious)
than a claim to equal agency for individuals irrespective of gender.
Agency, in the
simplest sense, means that the individual has first right to make any decisions
pertaining to themselves. Whether it is my time, my effort, my body or my
property – I, and (in the first instance) only I can decide what to do with
them. It is the deepest meaning of Liberty or Freedom. Like any other freedom,
it is not infinite: the harmonization of competing individual rights is precisely
the realm of the law-giver & the law-keeper, and reasonable restrictions
can be imposed in this respect. Minority is an obvious restriction, since we do
not ascribe the capacity or judgment necessary to exercise agency to those
below a certain age (or to those who, by reason of developmental or mental
afflictions, have not achieved it or have been deprived of it). This is a
telling restriction: its premise is that one who lacks capacity to understand
the consequences of his/her own actions cannot in good conscience be made to
face those consequences; this is why a guardian is appointed to make those
choices for them, and presumably to inculcate such capacity in them. The
principle is that those to whom agency is ascribed are competent not only to
choose or act for themselves, but to face the consequences of those choices or
actions.
This relationship
between choice & consequence is crucial. In practice, law restrains agency
in many ways. Broadly, where the consequence is interference in another’s
rights, the choice is curtailed. The principle is thus that restrictions should
be imposed on agency only to protect human rights the law deems unimpeachable.
Consequently, the first principle of feminism is simply this: GENDER IS NOT A
SUITABLE BASIS FOR RESTRICTIONS ON AGENCY.
It is easy to
see why so much of the media coverage is thus harmful, also hypocritical,
nonsense. Harmful because it is rooted in a patriarchal discourse of women as
victims. Where is the discussion on choice & consequence? Where is the
discussion on the impact of those consequences on rights, and on consequent
choices? Hypocritical, because those very media are littered with advertisements
premised on objectifying women. Objectification is the inherent negation of
Agency, because it assumes that BOTH MEN & WOMEN are passive reactants
to certain stimuli. Frankly, I don’t need to be a feminist to be insulted by
the suggestion that anyone who wants to can simply lead me around by the crotch.
This is why the
comment earlier this year by then head of the Women’s Rights Commission that to
call someone “sexy” is a compliment, akin to calling them beautiful or
graceful, is nonsense. Context matters. To call someone or something sexy today
means attraction towards that person or object; advertisements should make it
clear that “sexy” means “I want to possess that” – and too often, as the
sexiness of the model transitions to the object sold, the objectification extends
to the model, until the “person or object” distinction is blurred, even lost. Not
that the role of possession in sex was particularly understated in a patriarchy
to start with.
Incidentally,
this is also why women who say “Chivalry is dead” should be jumping for joy.
Chivalry was a step in the evolution of the rights discourse, but it was
addressed entirely at men; it barely attributed to women agency to choose a
champion. I just helped a co-passenger with an injured hand retrieve some
luggage. Was this chivalrous? Can’t tell me without knowing it the person I
helped was male or female, right? But how can gender be the basis for
determining the virtue of an action? In fact, this could be the long form of
the first principle: Gender is not a suitable basis for restriction on
agency BECAUSE gender is not a suitable basis for determining the virtue of an
action.
This should make
it clear why feminism is in fact revolutionary. In a strongly patriarchal
society, where great efforts in culture, religion & philosophy are devoted
to considering what is an ideal daughter, ideal wife or ideal mother (as also,
an ideal son, ideal husband, ideal father – remember, it’s a gender-neutral
claim of agency), the idea that virtue is independent of gender is itself a
challenge to the established order. The precise reason why sexual violence is an
act of such significance in society is that modesty is a virtue & lust a
sin only for females[5].
Rape, molestation & harassment are forms of punishment against women for choosing
to exercise their agency in ways of which society disapproves. Rape apologism
inevitably centres on lust – the “natural” lust that any man must be provoked to feel, and the “unnatural”
lust any immodest woman must be
feeling to display herself in such fashion[6],
which in turn somehow becomes a wholly natural lust again when physical signs
of arousal are used as evidence of consent. Suffice it to say, the more frequent
the clashes between patriarchal notions of modesty-as-virtue & the exercise
of agency in “immodest” ways by individuals, the more the instances of sexual
violence (in particular) & repression (in general) we will see.
Is that the
reason for the “rise” in sexual violence today? Perhaps to a small extent, but
a far greater proportion of the figures is simply a reporting & transparency
effect. Simply put, it seems far more likely that more rapes are being reported
than that more rapes are taking place. This may seem like a trivial point:
after all, the concern is that such offences are taking place, right? True,
except that such a formulation hides an important distinction. We are &
have since antiquity been a society riddled with violence against women. We are
not becoming more violent in consequence of modern influences, just more open
about it. This also tends to debunk claims that traditional virtues are being
corrupted by modern influences, leading to such violence – I freely concede that
such confrontations, perceptions etc. have a role, but the premise, that the
traditional system was somehow less violent, less repressive or more equitable
is deeply flawed. That is what the numbers really show: the extent to which the
existing systems already inflict sexual violence, especially in relation to
caste. Witness increasing sex-selective abortion: modern technology has, in
that instance, enabled traditional discrimination, not caused it.
This is,
precisely, the challenge facing feminism today. To push for agency in a world
dominated by patriarchal institutions, where such institutions control even the
terms of the discourse, and will punish every attempt to deviate from their
norms. In a sense, of course, this is the same challenge any subaltern movement
has always faced, and it comes with the same issues of tokenism[7]
& baiting into hypocritical arguments any such movement faces. It does,
however, throw up peculiar contradictions for a feminist: promoting agency for
people who themselves exercise it to punish those who would exercise it in
deviance of societal norms. I remember reading of reform efforts that women
over a certain age were often the most vocal opponents. And what to make of
informed, wealthy women still deciding on aborting a female foetus? The
feminist with clarity can handle these issues, as also the next one:
Agency clearly
includes taking responsibility for your own actions. So, if – being aware of
social context – you choose to place yourself in the path of danger, you must
accept the potentially life-shattering responses you may provoke. I cannot
absolve altogether from responsibility one who deliberately challenges societal
institutions. For instance, if a Slutwalk campaign had been organised here, it
was unlikely to register much support – and to the contrary, I would expect the
greatest numbers in attendance to be precisely those whose actions &
attitudes it is supposed to protest; they would turn up for a free show, and
perhaps even to mock the protesters. Indeed, Gods forbid, but if the number of
women protesting as opposed to the audience were too sharply skewed, I would
expect a mob situation to develop. Again, if I ever opted to commit suicide, I
could think of few ways as spectacular as launching a Dating School & Speed
Dating Agency in khap panchayat
heartland. Where does responsibility lie in such instances? What is a suitable
feminist response?
The answer has
this in common: I must answer for the consequences of my actions. And those who
choose to act against me, in violation of my rights, &/or in violation of
the law, must answer for theirs. Under most such circumstances, their violence
against the “deviant” element is the consequence – but their own actions must
attract retribution just as swift, sure & unforgiving. So the response is
not so much “teach your sons to be respectful, not your daughters how to dress”,
but both: until the world is safe enough for your daughters to dress as they
wish, please, do teach them to choose their clothes keeping in mind what they
plan to do, and what they expect to encounter.
One of the
tragedies of this encounter is how the word “sensible” has come to be so loaded
with political connotations. It really means what I wrote above – behave in a
rational way GIVEN WHAT YOU KNOW IS THE CONTEXT, even as you try to alter the
context to something more positive. Sadly, it has become the rape apologist’s
tool of choice, and taboo for a sensible writer to use.
Then again, that’s
probably the least of the tragedies playing out here.
[1]
Of course every salesman insists that he has no agenda in selling you anything.
The reader has no reason to believe me when I declare no motivation beyond annoyance
with the prevailing media climate. I will only say that almost all my writing
happens when someone or something affects me deeply enough that I MUST write a
response. The reader can – indeed, ought to – judge for him/herself if this
article does push any agenda.
[2]
Skip to Para 10 if you just want to read the answers to those questions. If you
disagree, come back & read the rest!
[3]
In the original sense of the word, being a complete submission of the
individual to the society.
[4]
The usual response to this argument is to raise ad hominem or “I know a man who” examples. Which is, once again,
nonsense: we are not talking in absolutes, but about trends. “Men are
physically stronger than women” is a biological fact with respect to the whole
population, not each & every individual present in it. Roger Bannister’s
four minute mile record was beaten by a man long before it was beaten by a
woman, and more men than women have beaten it. Any of the women who did break
it is, of course, a superior athlete to the vast majority of the male
population. All other factors being constant, though, men are still better
athletes.
So, yes, children are
raised “successfully” by working couples, nuclear families, single mothers, house-husbands,
even orphanages. Children are raised “unsuccessfully” by housewives & joint
families (whatever success means in this context). The trend is still in favour
of the latter. Further, as an economic question, even individual women or joint
families have to expend less resources and effort to achieve a given result, as
compared to men or nuclear families. Motherhood is a biological fact. Species
that did not evolve suitable care for their young died out, & even to date
the human female retains an evolutionary edge in childrearing alongside her
monopoly on childbearing.
[5]
In Indian Law, at least, “assault intended to outrage the modesty of (an adult)
male” is not an aggravated offense.
[6]
Note that this formulation of modesty being inapplicable to males has limits.
Male cross-dressers are branded as eunuchs, and broadly treated as outcasts.
The attribution of witch-like powers to them has granted them an odd kind of
respect, born from fear, but also makes them a target for violence in the event
of any misfortune in their vicinity. Forced castration has often been reported.
In some places, they have little choice but commercial sex work. Even in affluent
society, it seems unlikely that a cross-dresser could get professional employment
– except as a sort of freak figure in television or film. Tied in with hostility
towards homosexuality, this may be the reason for increasing instances of sex-change
operations. I am unaware of any research or even anecdotal evidence describing
society’s reactions to a “new woman” following such a procedure, but I suspect
they are not welcoming.
[7]
Intertwined with more objectification. Why does a secretary, receptionist or
(if anyone still employs them) a stenographer have to be or not be of a certain
age, appearance etc., depending on the company employing them & the message
it wishes to convey? I’m as happy as the next man to be greeted by a pretty
face, but one would think secretarial efficiency, perhaps a cheerful
disposition, more important. Perhaps one of the few positive consequences,
probably unintended, of such tokenism has been to a premium on appearance,
grooming & presentation skills for men & women alike. I do not comment
on whether this emphasis itself is a good thing, only the fact that it seems to
be increasingly a gender-neutral demand.
"Objectification is the inherent negation of Agency, because it assumes that BOTH MEN & WOMEN are passive reactants to certain stimuli." Thank you for this Ameya. True, every word you wrote. A much needed balm, even if just words.
ReplyDelete