Post-Structural Feminism

Ok, I finally got some time to weed through this topic. The problem with post-structural theory of any kind, is that it is often too complex for a simple overview and often flies in the face of how most people are taught to understand the world. It is, however, where I view myself in the theoretical world, with a little Marxist feminism thrown in.

Post-Structuralism as a whole stems from French philosophy and can be applied to many topics. The general assumption of post-strucutral theory is that "truth" as we see it is always mediated by our own interpretations and experiences and that true objectivity is, therefore, impossible. Post-structural theory is based mostly in the fields of humanities and focuses much attention on language - since language is our tool for applying meaning to the world.

As George Carlin once said, ideas and thoughts are "fluid. Once you apply a word to a thought, we're stuck with that word for that thought" and it becomes something more concrete. Power is not exercised directly, but through the way in which language shapes and restricts our reality. This is why post-structural feminists challenge certain terminology. This is why it is important that we say "human" instead of "mankind" or "chairperson" instead of "chairman". The use of the gendered terms automatically places the male in the dominant position of normalcy and the woman as the "other". Sure, there are people who take this too far, but language is a powerful tool for both liberation and thought control. If we cannot think to reform how we represent people and situations in language, then we will never be able to truly change the world.

So what does all this mean to feminism? Well, a post-structural feminist would say that gender can never be understood outside of its social construction within a particular culture. No definition of what it means to be a man or woman is concrete or objective - these words and concepts only gain meaning within a particular cultural context, and are limited to that cultural context. They also argue that the way in which gender is constructed in most societies creates artificial hierarchies of power. This occurs because of our habit of defining the world in dualities and comparing some "normative" category with an "other."

In this case, post-structural feminists argue that our society is built around the dualistic view of gender, where males are the normative category and females are the 'other'. This gives males power over females, and automatically gives females an inferior position. This duality, however, is not naturally occuring - it is constructed because that is the way we have been defining our world for centuries. It cannot be naturally occuring because the concept of male carries no meaning by itself. It is not until male is compared to female that it gains definition and meaning.

Post-structural feminists are concerned with the use of language and images that give meaning to gender. How are women (or gender) represented and why? Gender only gains meaning when it is constructed through concrete representations (images, language, etc.). If these representations are what give meaning to gender, then changing these representations can change the meaning and values attached to gender.

Post-structuralists are also interested in how power operates in society. By "power" we do not mean simply active oppression or top-down disciplinary actions. We argue that socialization acts as the primary, non-punative method of persuading people to behave in a certain way. This comes primarily from the writings of Michel Foucault. So, for instance, girls are socialized to want the "fairy tale" where the prince charming sweeps them off their feet and whisks them away to happiness. Girls are rewarded for being passive and shy, but also learn how to display themselves in ways appealing to attract men. Social pressure is the disciplinarian - girls who do not fit into this passive, boy-crazy pattern are ostracized as tom-boys or "dykes". Boys are rewarded for being assertive, active, and to seek out girls (after the age where girls cease be be "icky"). If a boy does not meet the social criteria for appropriate behavior, he is socially punished.

Our male-centric society is exposed when we look at the varying degrees of social punishment weilded on girls and boys who buck the trend. It is obvious that appropriate performance of masculinity for boys is valued more than appropriate performance of femininity for girls. There is much more tolerance for girls who cross into the realm of boys than it is for boys to cross into the realm of girls- there's even a cute name for it - tom-boy. Boys who want to do play with dolls are teased much more viciously than girls who want to play sports. Boys who are classified as "sissy" or "fag" are often subjected to more violence at the hands of classmates and are subjected to more criticism from their parents.

To many people, gender seems to be an inherent trait. Post-structuralists argue that it only seems inherent because the social cues for gender are so ingrained in our everyday social relations. Unless you are able to remove yourself, for a time, from the process and look at it from a different point of view, you won't see it. Those who cannot consider the realm of other possibilities for social order are stuck in their world of absolute truth.