MacKinnon and Young-- Mechanisms of Oppression 

Christine Brittain

            Catherine MacKinnon discusses the issues of sex discrimination inherently lurking beneath the guise of “legal sex equality.”  Readers can best critically interpret MacKinnon’s view of female oppression through two of Iris Young’s Five Faces of Oppression: exploitation and marginalization.

            Young describes exploitation through Marxist terms denoting that one class becomes exploited when its labor disproportionately benefits another class. Young provides an example where women give emotional and sexual benefits, however more frequently do not receive such benefits themselves (Young, 50-51).  MacKinnon’s work focuses less on exploitation of women in particular, but rather how current attempts for “equality” ignore the prevalent past exploitation that clearly affects where women are today socially, professionally and economically.  MacKinnon urges that prior exploitation of women so afflicted with by remaining forced within the confines of the home or workplace necessarily affects how women view their role today as well as how men or other cultures view their role and worth. 

            MacKinnon’s article most speaks from Young’s second face of oppression: marginalization.  In the past, women have been subconsciously pinned into certain parts of social and work life with little opportunity to move up or outside of those realms because specificities like education or perceived rationality have disassociated women from positions of power. Young describes marginalization in terms of the system of labor and the people that it cannot or will not use (Young, 53). Women cannot “legally” be denied a job or fired based on her sex, however, the law’s goals for sex equality inherently deny women certain rights based on their differences.  Because women need maternity leave, the American legal system allows for ways that women can be laid off if they need to go on maternity leave.  Because women are different, women have different needs than men, however vacation time remains the same in many companies or corporations because of the movement towards “equality.”  This supposed equality in reality undermines the female ability to be viewed as a woman in her workplace and rather determines her worth by masculine standards. 

Ren on Lugones & Spelman

The study question for this particular article is to see whether and how, implicitly or explicitly, Lugones and Spelam are extending or using the matter of binary oppositions such as reason/emotion, masculine/ feminine, active/passive. In their presentation of the issue at hand and the solutions they offer, they very explicitly draw a distinction between the emotionality of feminist theory, emphasizing the exclusionary space it places many women, and the mechanical process that could be taken to offer a better and rather less insulting holistic theory. They emphasized the use of voice, and how many feminist theorizers today take on the form of a white, western, middle class woman; and because this identity allows for the least amount of multi-form interference (unlike black woman who are not only women but black) often the voices of these bodies are stand-ins for the voices and experiences of all women. Consequently, the voices, identities, and experiences of women who fall outside of this distinction have their feminism theorized for them, often at the expense of their own much more accurate, liberating, and educational self-expression. This brings Spelman and Lugones to propose 5 methods to theorize that are “helpful, illuminating, empowering, and respectful” and that could potentially avoid offending those women who these theories are proposed for. These include, (1) making sure the theory allows for one to see how parts of one’s life fit together, (2) will help to locate one’s life in the world, (3) will enable one to think about the extent to which one is responsible for this location, (4) will provide criteria for change and make useful suggestions, and finally (5) will provide adequate navigational information involving theory, change, and resistance. Their article highlights the impossibility of divorcing the two important factors of feminism: lived experiences and theory. They emphasize that the dominant theory today only serves to highlight and educate about the lived experiences of white western woman; paradoxically in that the method used is scientific and aims to theorize the lives of all women. The dichotomy of the binary opposition is apparent in their piece, particularly because one cannot adequately express and speak on the lives of all women without experiencing the lives of all women, and vice versa.ducation about the lived experiences of white westernone

Kelsey on Lugones & Spelman

In this piece, Lugones and Spelman analyze the way in which cultural imperialism in connected to the feminist demand for a "woman's voice" by analyzing how women of different ethic and cultural identities experience oppression, and therefore liberation, differently. The demand for a "woman's voice" came about as a response to fact that men had been giving accounts of women and women had not had their own distinct voice to theorize about themselves. Feminists called for women to speak for themselves and make their own voices known as the only way to accurate represent themselves. However, in the process, white women became the dominant voice of all women within mainstream feminism and silenced the voices of women of color in the same way that men had silenced all women previously. The main binary that I picked up on was the distinction between "we" and "you" that the authors make. Many white feminists who use the term"we" think that they are speaking for all women, but in reality women of color recognize that these women are often speaking only about themselves. This binary can also be articulated as inclusion/exclusion and has unfortunately plagued mainstream feminism.

Lugones explains that Hispanic feminists are often presented with a choice between remaining silent or altering their consciousness to fit the dominant norm because in order to engage in feminist dialogue, they often must ignore certain parts of their identities, such as their native language. This simple fact that English is not everyone's language is a reminder that American feminism is not completely comprehensive. Similarly, other feminist theorists have also supported the notion that all language is patriarchal in nature and that a true feminist consciousness is impossible within the confines of language itself.

The authors also point out that the women who often have access to education and academics are the ones who are able to theorize about women's oppression. As a result the theory that emerges is not a one size fits all theory and may only be useful for certain groups of women, usually middle-class white, heterosexual women. This point is important to consider specifically within the context of an academic setting where it is crucial to remember our privileged position and the way our access to certain materials shapes our understanding.

Catherine on Lugones & Spelman

The reading explores the conflict surrounding the feminist theory being created entirely by white women and how this consequently silences women of color. This piece discusses how different the experience of white women is in comparison to the experience of women of color. The hierarchical difference between these two categories of women is compared to the hierarchical gap between binary opposites: men and women, the working class and the upper class, the superior race and the inferior race. Furthermore, the repeated use of “we” and “you” throughout the text implies that there is an in-group and an out-group. It is important that this opposition is exposed as many people are still under the illusion that the female experience is the same across the board. A lot of people have grown accustom to the idea that all women are oppressed in the same way, which is problematic. Being a woman of color and, or homosexual means that you experience more oppression than white heterosexual women. Moreover, it is important that this opposition is exposed so that white heterosexual women can be aware of their privilege. Also, exposing this difference could aid white feminist theorists in refraining from speaking for all women when they only have their singular, privileged experience as reference. As the reading discusses, after white feminists come to the realization that they cannot speak for everyone then it will be possible for a genuine dialogue to begin between white feminists and feminists of color. The intention of the dialogue is very important. If white feminists approach the dialogue as a way to make up for the atrocities that white people have committed towards people of color then that alone is offensive. That approach implies that white feminists are active and black feminists are passive. This binary opposition is incredibly troublesome. It suggests that white feminists will be actively working to redeem themselves and black feminists will simply be the tool that allows white feminists to feel better about themselves.

Christine on Lugones & Spelman

Have We Got a Theory for You! – Maria Lugones and Elizabeth Spelman (1983)

            The paper begins by criticizing theorizing methods of the early feminist movements through three binary oppositions: inferiority/superiority, active/passive and negation/affirmation. Lugones and Spelman discuss many ways in which white women, who have so dominated the academic and political arenas of feminism distinctly disregard, ignore and do not understand the life experiences of women of color or minority groups.
             The most obvious disregard of the feminist movement was the obvious superiority of the women making authoritative claims over the “female experience.”  By theorizing and dictating political and social position from “the woman’s voice” they inadvertently reduce such positions to simply their own.  They either intentionally or unintentionally disregarded the position of minority women that could be of lower socioeconomic, educational or class views forcing some women’s experience into lesser importance and denying them the opportunity to speak of that as experience.
            The second explicit binary opposition women ascribe to in early feminist theory is the active and passive involvement of different types of women in the movement and what that means for the movement as a whole.  The passive observation minority women and women of color use to understand and emulate the Anglo-centric world in order to survive often becomes regarded as simple disinterest or lack of education as to the “right” way women should be involved in the world.  For equal representation of all women, white women must take a more passive role and replace their power with distinct discomfort, alienation and criticism from women of color in order to begin scratching the surface of the experiences of their peers. 
            The final binary opposition explicitly used by the authors reflects the negation/ affirmation of one’s location in the world in order to connect to the movement.  Minorities are in a constant negation of the United States’ elitist social structure, whereas middle and upper class white women benefit greatly from such a structure and therefore are constantly affirming their surroundings.  Women of color do not necessarily see American, capitalist culture as affirming of their experience. Such a culture negates their historical and cultural make up in order to assimilate, survive and subsequently excel.  Women of color must constantly negate the current theories that are being produced by educated middle or upper class women in order to keep up with the political, social and academic shifts.  Rather than using their own language towards affirmative acknowledgement and reflection of their experience in the world, these women are forced to adjust their articulation in terms of the way powerful women can understand, which often distorts their experience or argument fundamentally. ​
​

Jeff on Lugones & Spelman

Lugones and Spellman speak on the binary opposition of inclusion and exclusion. The female voice is central to feminist methodology and integral to sharing and engaging other in the experiences of women. However, the females voice is systemically silenced by a historical pattern shaped by patriarchal constructs. Even more, within the demand to be heard lies an inherent bias that highlights the voices of some but silences the voices of others. Lugones states, “systemic, sustained reflection on being a woman, is most likely done by women who vis-à-vis other women enjoy certain amount of political, social, and economic privilege because of their skin color, class membership, ethnic identity”.

The authors also speak on the opposition of “insiders” and “outsiders”, with regards to the feminist theorization of different female populations in any given cultural/ social setting. The outsider attempts to give an account of “insiders” own experience often times observing their own cultural experience and applying it to their account of others, thereby remaking others in their own image. The pressure to believe outsider accounts are problematic because the individual begins to view themselves not based on their on reality but based on the perceived reality of others. Often times females of color and white females are unprepared to engage in dialogue about experiences due to as Lugones states, “the hierarchical distinctions between theorizers and those theorized about” which are “endorsed by the same views and institutions which endorse support hierarchical distinctions between men/women, master race/inferior race, and intellectuals/ manual workers”. 

Rupsha on Lugones & Spelman

The reading by Lugones and Spelman, which addresses the subject of cultural imperialism
 in the context of creating spaces for women to have a voice, primarily uses the perspective of Hispanic women to illustrate the ways in which race, class, and other identities are marginalized in nascent feminist theory.

The paper does both implicitly and explicitly use the binary of masculine/feminine to
 illustrate the historical marginalization of women’s voice. In this case, Lugones and Spelman have utilized this binary to reinforce their argument, as they have framed the “feminine” voice as distinct from a “masculine” one. Classical feminist theory significantly
 increased the volume of female voices, but as Lugones and Spelman point out, ones that were white, middle class, and usually Christian. The reason a re-imagining of feminist theory is necessary is because the voices that are heard are so homogenous. Classical
 feminist theory fails because it does not expose the experiences of all women, but instead, those of “certain women” (Lugones 502). I agree with the authors’ position that feminist theory needs to be reframed to include more voices, however, I believe their
 use of the masculine/feminine binary is dangerous because it has the potential of excluding sexual and gender minorities. For example, it is necessary to have women’s voices, but it is also necessary to have the voices of trans-men in feminist spaces.

While the paper does not discuss the subject of intersectionality explicitly, its discussion
 of cultural imperialism and the white-washed nature of classical feminist theory illustrates a binary opposition between mainstream feminism (or white feminism) and intersectional feminism. Lugones and Spelman implicitly argue that these two ideas as mutually
 exclusive. The explanation is very simple and encompasses the contradictory nature of universal citizenship discussed in class: the attempt to be inclusive of women’s voices leads to the marginalization of women who inhabit other identities (race, class, sexuality).
 A mutual consideration of experiences is virtually impossible when the very framework under which these matters are discussed is a white feminist framework. In this case, the binary oppositions of rationality and emotionality become evident. The intent to
 be rational in doling out spaces for women to speak becomes oppressive because it forces non-white women to inhabit white spaces. As Lugones and Spelman point out, even engaging a Spanish-speaking woman in a conversation in English is a form of cultural imperialism.

Furthermore, Lugones and Spelman discuss the idea that a critical theory can be “true”
 or “false” based on how accurately it speaks to lived experience and whether it reinforces existing power structures. While I agree that we ought to be critical of existing theories, the absolutist labels of “true” and “false” can also be problematic. To date
 there has been no widespread feminist movement that is entirely inclusive of all identities. This means nothing can truly be classified as “true.”

Finally, Lugones and Spelman conclude with a solution to imperialistic and ethnocentric
 feminist theories: openness, sensitivity, concentration, self-questioning, and circumspection (Lugones 507). They use the binary opposition of active/passive to advance their viewpoint. In other words, they reject a framework that passively engages women and
 encourages active self-criticism and productive dialogue.
​
-Rupsha Basu

Weicome to your class blog

To write a post, click on new post button on the top right of the window.  To edit an existing item, use the pencil icon.  Type or paste in your entry.  Then hit publish.   If you can't get this to work, just email me your entry: nmcafee@emory.edu.  When it comes time to peer review an entry, use the comments feature at the bottom of the post.  If there isn't any comment yet, click on "no comments" and that should open up a box for commenting.