Legalizing Subjectivity

Today in class we were asked to jot down questions about Susan Bordo's Are Mothers Persons? and Harriet Washington's The Black Stork: The Eugenic Control of African American Reproduction from Medical Apartheid. In response to Susan Bordo's reading I asked, why is subjectivity of the female body so easily imposed upon as if it were a blank slate? As a class we discussed cultural, and legal understandings of motherhood as feminine and reflecting sexist discourse. My question was formulated from Bordo's point of an American failure to locate the female body in structures of power. I think her philosophical point that pregnant women (I use this term specifically because can one really say they are mothers yet?) have subjectivity is important but does not go far enough to re-frame the debate on women's reproduction. I believe this to be true because pro-choice can argue for the subjectivity of the women's body and pro-life argues for the subjectivity of the fetus once again making the debate about ethics. Her theory would require state removal from the issue entirely and a re-education of the way doctors treat the fetus to centralize the pregnant woman. Not to be a pessimist but this seems far off.

However I think Bordo's philosophy on subjectivity can be put to better use in what Washington names the Negro Project. The Negro Project was a political and medical campaign to reduce the number of children of specifically Black and Latino women in America. The disproportionate use of birth control, sterilization treatments and medical exploitation of colored American women can be understood as an eugenics movement in America. This article contextualizes black history in America and focuses on how her body has been the object of state policies.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is the story of an African American woman born in 1920. After her fifth child she developed skin cancer and went to John Hopkins Hospital for treatment. During the radium treatments to her cervix the doctors also removed pieces of her cervix, without her knowledge or consent of course. The sample which came from her went on to become known as the HeLa cells, the first cells to live, reproduce and thrive outside of the human body. They helped create a cure for Polio and are even used today in the testing of cures for AIDS and Cancer and who know what else. But do the 'rewards' or ends justify the means? Her body lacked subjectivity in the eyes of doctors, doctors who are supposed to be highly esteemed and have respect their patients. It is silly to me to argue for the subjectivity of the unborn when grown women do not even have the ability to have complete subjectivity of their own lives and bodies. Perhaps, if laws started to focus on instances like that of Henrietta Lacks paradigms would shift on subjectivity and eventually alter the reproduction debate as well?

I am currently in a class on charity/poverty. A lot of the tactics to end poverty are focused on women's bodies. For example in Egypt family planning is strongly supported because it is believed developed countries have fewer children per family. This places the burden of poverty heavily on the poor, because poorer families often have more children than wealthier families. This may be true but is that because developed countries became developed because fewer children were born or are fewer children a byproduct of developed/modernized countries? It just seems like eugenics hidden in pro-development/nationalist rhetoric to me. What does a constructive solution look like for poverty that gives individuals their subjectivity?

Control Through Homophobic Sexism

Basketball was my sport from middle school until college. I played on three teams year round had season tickets to the WNBA Connecticut Sun and lived for UCONN basketball . I'm a typical product of my hometown Storrs, Ct. Guess you can say I was obsessed. Where I am from basketball is the norm for boys and girls yet I grew up recognizing that I was a tomboy when on the court in my long 'boyish' shorts and slicked back pony tail. Perhaps 'tomboy' is the childhood precursor to Griffin' term, 'mannish lesbian'? In middle school I definitely tried to accommodate for this image by dressing more 'feminine' during school hours. Silly little girl I was. Griffin points out a shift from promoting a feminine image for sports to one that promotes a heterosexual image. I think it is important to recognize that the feminine image is an integral aspect when promoting a 'heterosexual image'. They are closely linked and reflect the interconnected relationship of sexism and homophobia.

Griffin says the mannish lesbian is a stereotype used as a scare tactic against female athletes for going against the sexist and heterosexist status quo. I love her ability to draw out a real world example where homophobia is used as a tool for sexism. Many people often question why women's sports are not supported and valued equally to that of mens. My sports crazed brother would tell you he enjoys women's basketball more than mens because it is often played as a team cohesive sport (yes he is generalizing) where as men's basketball thrives on the athleticism of superstars. This reflects his personal opinion which is no more valid than anyone else's but so few people ever watch women's basketball close enough in the first place to have an opinion. The point is I think there is something to be said about the role of homophobia in recruiting and choosing to be a spectator. It's taboo to watch and enjoy women's sports. The reason being because female athletes are constructed as "mannish", "lesbians" and even "mannish lesbians". This rhetoric is imposed on individuals and is reflected in the language used to talk about athletes resulting in the stereotyping of entire female sports.

For example, where I grew up softball was the sport all girls dropped in high school because it was the 'lesbian' sport. Yet, ballett is a sport that is free from homophobic stereotypes because it produces the feminine body. It seems as if the sport does not matter at all but the body the sport produces is what is trying to be controlled by sexism, heterosexism and homophobia. I think if not already American culture is very close to reproducing the revolution Anne Crittenden writes about where women, "will inherit the essential source of human self-confidence-pride in and control over a finely tuned body" (114). Yet, this version of a revolution reproduces fat shame, classism and does not do enough to address a status quo desire to control and construct the feminine body. Her revolution only shifts the hierarchy it does not dismantle it. I believe in Griffins arguments but I think it is often hard for us to recognize homophobia and sexism and linked. Why is this and is it even possible to address them simultaneously?

Staring to center bodies

As a child I'm sure we all wish Rosmarie Garland-Thomson had been our mother at times when we were caught staring at disabled bodies because she is pro-staring. She is pro-staring when the staring allows for people to see an individual as they are. However staring becomes bad when the starer is looking for what an individual is expected to be. It is the lack of recognition, which leads to exploitation of bodies and the creation of spectacles that feed our imagination. I think most of our mothers scolded us for staring as children because navigating intentions behind staring can be difficult.

While, Thomson supports staring as political activism I think conversation needs to be a part of staring. Without communication the act of staring usually becomes rude as seen by the way Robert Wadlow was treated. Thomson's work strives to normalize all human bodies as they are in their natural state. I would argue that recognition is only the first step in changing the way we value bodies in American Society. My younger sister is partially paralyzed on the left side of her body. Watching her grow up in an "able" bodied world I've seen many of the ways she has had to adapt and validate herself to others as a worthy body. She often uses humor when talking to peers to make them feel comfortable. The way her body is stared at as a spectacle reflects peoples able bodied expectations. It usually takes a personal interaction with my sister for people to actually see her. Thomson's theory of staring attempts to make space for individuals like my sister where they do not have to explain themselves, "The people who inhabit such bodies are misfits in the literal sense of the word. Their unexpected bodies do not fit into a world built for others" (167). I often find myself being extremely protective of my sister because I have grown to expect the violating look of expectations.

All bodies should be valued. The difficulty is determining how to change peoples expectations of bodies? Thomson discuses body dialogue in “Theorizing Disability”. She presents physical disabilities in a positive light through a linguistic binary comparison. She labels able-bodies as “non-disabled” and non-able bodies as “disabled”. She attaches the negative connotation to what society considers the norm and allows for disabled people and issues to be centered instead of the usual marginalization disabled people normally encounter.

We should criticize the isolating nature of the environments we have created instead of the bodies so we can change social constructions of bodies. To do so requires a stare and in this sense political activism is at work. Allegheny College has a long way to go in altering the way people stare. This is reflected in the inaccessibility of dorms; classrooms and even the brick sidewalks are difficult to maneuver. Many people are prevented from attending Allegheny because of normalized able bodied rhetoric. How do you think we can change the way bodies are constructed at Allegheny? Is staring enough?

Seeing Structural Violence

Toni Morrison aims to show through her novel, The Bluest Eyes, violence within the black community is not innate or natural but the byproduct of layers of structural violence that are imposed upon the black community. Morrison portrays the decay of the community through the violent acts of child molestation, incest, spousal abuse among others. The forms of structural violence are racism, sexism and classism which play out in education systems, popular culture and class systems that value white culture. Institutionalized violence is interdependent with direct violent actions. Violence causes decay.

Pecola and Claudia contrast each other in how they deal with the institutionalized racism which rejects minority values and leads to violence. Pecola is used to show how even the meekest are turned out by their own community and victimized when layers of violence exist.Pecola is sacrificed by everyone around her in an effort to escape white oppression, reflecting a community failure, “All of us- all who knew her – felt so wholesome after we cleaned ourselves on her. We were so beautiful when we stood astride her ugliness. Her simplicity decorated us, her guilt sanctified us, her pain made us glow with health, her awkwardness made us think we had a sense of humor. Her inarticulateness made us believe we were eloquent. Her poverty kept us generous. Even her waking dreams we used – to silence our own night-mares.” (Morrison, 205). The community is too fragmented by violence which itself stems from the internalization of racism. Pecola's very existence is her downfall because it grates against normative white culture. Due to structural violence in the form of poverty, poor education, pop culture promoting white values, her community was fragmented and was not able to prevent her destruction.

Claudia however perseveres. Claudia is one of the only people in the book to recognize Pecola was in part destroyed by the fragmentation of her community. Claudia's character rejects white normative culture. Through the juxtaposition of the two characters it seems Morrison implies that only through the valuing of black culture and community and rejection of white images will there be hope to undermine structural violence.

I think its important to bring up as well the notion of eyes as an important theme within this book in relation to violence. I believe Morrison put an emphasis on eyes rather than hair or anything else that differentiates white people and black people because our eyes act as witnesses. Blue and brown eyes are both able to bear witness to the social injustices that result in violence and allowed for the destruction of someone as innocent as Pecola. Claudia's eyes serve as a form of hope to the future of the black community because she was able to see through structural injustices.

Beauty as Acceptance

In Autumn, Morrison presents two black families with varying social statuses and a group of female prostitutes. She weaves a story through these families, which at its core addresses beauty in a black community that adheres to beauty standards as represented by Shirley Temple, Dick & Jane and Mary Jane. Beauty is understood as “white and blue eyed” creating hierarchies of power. What stands out for me from the chapter Autumn, is the marginalization of women due to a socially constructed racialized beauty. Black women try to conform to femininity which is based on normalized white standards of beauty. Since these standards can never be achieved Morrison’s black female characters learn to hate their blackness which leads to a self hatred. Beauty is understood to be in relation to acceptance. For the children in the book a lack of acceptance is understood as ugliness. Pecola’s lack of acceptance resembles Amy Farrells construction of citizenship and fat bodies.

Black women learn to see themselves through white eyes, as symbolized by Pecola praying every night for blue eyes, “she has seen it lurking in the eyes of all white people. So. The distaste must be for her, her blackness. All things in her are flux and anticipation. But her blackness is static and dread. And it is the blackness that accounts for, that creates the vacuum edged with distaste in white eyes” (47). In preplace of beauty Pecola finds anger, and through this anger she determines her worth. Her self determined worth is directly connected to the way people treat her because of her race. As a child she processes and internalizes racism as being ugly. The anger of being marginalized is present throughout the parent child relationships and is symbolic of the tension created between femininity and beauty. Anger plays out within and among the black community because it is the only outlet.

Pecola’s character portrays a body on which an inferior status has been inscribed. Her inferior body relates back to the Barkty reading we read earlier in the semester, which discusses women’s bodies as dociled. Pecola’s dociled body lacks agency in a world that does not value her race and gender. Agency leads me back to the issue of citizenship, how would changing standards of beauty influence ones citizenship and how can this be done?

Fit for Citizenship?

Amy Farrell’s book Fat Shame breaks down the ways ‘fat shame’ plays out through race, class, and gender. Her unique theory on the relation between fat and citizenship shines light on how fat acts as an umbrella for feminist issues that address race, class and gender. Fat as a theoretical contemporary feminism, and perspective provides space to launch discussions that address intersectional identifiers (race, class, gender). Fat discussions are an important aspect to feminist discussion because they address power relations by challenging societal norms of citizenship. Citizenship is often understood in constitutional terms but the citizenship that Farrell addresses is a citizenship of belonging and often becomes a citizenship of exclusivity. To clarify a definition of citizenship Dictionary.com defines Citizenship as,

the character of an individual viewed as a member of society; behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen: an award for good citizenship.

The keyword that hits me is, “obligations”. Society has constructed humans worthy of citizenship when they fulfill and adhere to specific obligations. Obligations In normative American culture this obligation plays out for women as an obligation to be thin, yet curvy. To fulfill normative societal constructed obligations is to be worthy of power. Citizenship equates to power. When fat people are denied citizenship they become marginalized, fat becomes an alienated demographic, a other. In essence women’s studies, studies power dynamics and exploitation of those constructed as others. Historically feminism has played into cycles of fat shame as seen in suffragist rhetoric reinforcing ideas of fat bodies as humiliating, “certain people were simply more fit for citizenship than others” (104). Feminists histories’ undermining of fat bodies has carried over into contemporary feminism creating challenges for feminists in dealing with women and standards of beauty. I believe fat studies has a lot to teach feminists about fighting mainstream dominant culture because fat spans all identifiers. I am curious to know more about how fat plays out in masculine identities. Fat men are stigmatized differently than fat women. I can think of a lot more men who are fat in popular culture than I can women. Does this mean their bodies are more accepted than women’s fat ones? Is there something for us to learn in the acceptance of fat men’s bodies or is this just because their sexuality is constructed differently?

Citizenship should be about obligations to social justice, and equality of society. If one does not belong, they are marginalized and this is seen through the multiplicity of stigma’s surrounding fat. It is a shame fat discussion does not occur more often. Fat needs to be discussed in positive ways, especially by feminists but also by the general public. Perhaps fat talks can teach us new ways to understand what citizenship is and allow us to understand what the ultimate purpose and goal of citizenship is in the first place. My ideal citizenship would be one that uplifted the entire community by including and valuing people’s differences, even fat.

Holistic Health

Discussions on health in American culture constantly revert to fat rhetoric, as seen by the medical community's reliance on the BMI scale/chart. There is an inherent problem with the fight against obesity in America because it assumes that to be healthy you have to fit into a certain clothing size. Health in America is not actually about the well being of the person at all, but about the visibility of the persons body. It is ignorant to assume that health is always visible and measurable. Our understanding of health as seen through emphasis of addressing the material body are purely physical. Amy Farrell endorses health and wellbeing while she also claims to be a fat activist.

If health cannot be determined by the physical, fat, then what is health? Is health determined by who lives the longest? Yet, we do not know why some people live longer than others and often times it has nothing to do with the physical wellbeing of the person.

I recently read an article that addressed the health of Babushkas who still live in nuclear contaminated, Chernobyl. There is a group of women who choose to live together in their motherland, Chernobyl, in spite of every medical recommendation there is. "According to reports by the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children’s Fund, many of those who were relocated after the accident now suffer from anxiety, depression and disrupted social networks, the traumas of displaced people everywhere. And these conditions seem to have health effects as real as those caused by radiation. “Paradoxically, the women who returned to their ancestral homes in the zone outlive those who left by a decade,” says Alexander Anisimov, a journalist who has spent his career studying the self-settler community. No health studies have been done, but anecdotal evidence suggests that most of the babushkas die of strokes rather than any obvious radiation-related illnesses, and they’ve dealt better with the psychological trauma. Toxic levels of strontium and cesium in the soil are real, but so are the tug of the ancestral home and the health benefits of determining one’s own destiny. East or West, pig fat or organic almond butter, few would deny that being happy helps you live longer." (Holly Morris) The Babushkas admit that they suffer from physical health conditions but overall they are happy and content with life. I use this as an example to show the importance of mental health as well as physical. The ways in which the "American fight against obesity" often get played out only address a limited version of health, typical for Western ideology.

The way health discussions are constructed through fat rhetoric can actually be more damaging to a persons health than the state of being fat. The fat shame Farrell refers to is seen in the form of anxiety, depression, and self image issues. This in turn is directly connected to physical health they cannot be separated. A persons health is not one dimensional therefore it cannot be compartmentalized to "psychology and psychiatry for the mind and medicine (diets etc.) for the body" (Synnott, 36). Going back to Synnott from the beginning of the semester, I agree believe a holistic approach needs to be used in addressing a persons health. It is also important to remember that what is healthy for me may not be healthy for someone else because of situational circumstances.

http://www.more.com/chernobyl-women-nuclear-holly-morris?page=5

Trans Activism

Gender is a performance; it is constructed and promoted through all forms of American institutions. Simultaneously masculinity is valued more significantly than femininity, creating an inequality between gender performances. This inequality keeps gender framed as a hierarchical binary, preventing us from conceiving a society where gender is fluid and ambiguous. Transgender is a difficult concept to envision because it challenges the very way I think about gender. As a result I have to constantly make a conscious effort to challenge my innate urge, which is learned and not actually innate, to construct gender binaries. This blog post is a part of my own process to reconstruct my personal understanding of gender as embodiment. I believe trans activism has an important message for all people, even those who do not identify as transgender because it’s construction of gender has the potential to promote true equality via the opportunity of choice instead of coercion.

I felt perplexed, last class, after having an enlightening discussion about Transgender as a claimable identity. After some thought, I realized my frustration is with the inability of transgender to play out as fluid and ambiguous in public forums. A person who self identifies as transgender in the media is easily reconstructed by the viewer as either masculine or feminine because all that person sees is a limited image, snapshot or quote of a persons entire fluid and constantly changing life. This only allows for those who are willing to come forward and put their identities as transgender on display in the media to come forward. Sucks, right? It is unfair to ask a person who self identifies as transgender to put themselves on display and explain themselves to everyone else. This is dangerous as it allow for spectators to turn the individual into a spectacle, giving TLC yet another show. This also forces the label of transgender to become a defining experience, which must constantly be explained. Transgender individuals unfairly become the bridge.

This is where trans activists like Juliana Serano, author of Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity calls for alliances to alleviate the alienation of people for their differences. Differences must be embraced and recognized for the true inclusion of all. Juliana Serano helps addresses the inability of transgender to play out in public forums by reconstructing the problem of gender binaries as a problem of gender entitlement. Gender entitlement defined as, “arrogant conviction that one’s own beliefs, perceptions and assumptions regarding gender and sexuality are more valid than those of other people” (89).

“I suggest that we turn our energies and attention away from the way that individuals “do” or “perform” their own genders and instead focus on the expectations and assumptions that those individuals project onto everybody else.” If assumptions and projections can be changed to be more encompassing and open minded then all forms of performance on the gender spectrum would be deemed acceptable, even if they happen to be hetero masculine and hetero feminine.

The feminist movement can benefit from looking to trans activist movements because unlike other movements it does not look to shatter binary systems that inevitably only result in a shift of power. Trans activist movements lose voice when grouped with LGB groups because transgender differences are often ignored in the very groups that are supposed to be all encompassing. The trans activist movement follows through with its theory by refusing to alienate anyone and recognizing the value of alliances. Alliances are important to institutionalizing transgender and changing the way gender constructions are perceived. David Valentine argues that transgender is already institutionalized but I challenge this statement. The current institutionalization of transgender is limiting because it is not easily accessible to everyone. Sure, I can take a LGBT class but as a college student I am part of an elite, just another hierarchical binary. True equality is achieved in the inclusion of everyone not just elite.

Mapping Out The Body Through Images

I like to think of my body as my own body. After all, when I wake up in the morning and go to brush my teeth I am the one who decides to do the brushing even if grudgingly and groggy eyed. It's probably safe to say that everyone likes to and or often does think of their embodiment as autobiographical. Yet, we all know our actions are not isolated to the originality of our unique personalities. Not only do I brush my teeth but I whiten my teeth (after all I am a chronic consumer of coffee). While, I may brush my teeth because it is hygienic I go above and beyond hygienic standards. Essentially I am conforming to another ideal, the ideal that pearly whites are more attractive than stains.

In this oversimplified but everyday practice on my body you can see both agency and powerlessness. My agency is in my refusal to give up coffee and a personal preference for white teeth because I think they look nice but when my practice of whitening teeth is contextualized in larger society my decision is one that plays into ideals that women should be feminine and to be feminine is to be pristine and have pearly whites. Clearly according to every Listerine and Orbit Gum ad, who is going to want to kiss a girl without eye blinding white teeth? Teeth have pre-inscribed meanings because they are attached to the woman's mouth, which is often interpreted as both a sensual and sexual part of a woman’s body. The ideal of white teeth applies to men as well as women, showing that both men's and women's bodies are sites of negotiation for agency and powerlessness. Victoria Pitt ingeniously refers to this negotiation as a "body project" signifying the constant evolution of battles played out on the body. Constructions of sex, gender and sexuality make the experiences of men’s and women’s body projects vastly different.

Our body projects are influenced by other images of bodies and we see these images all the time. Advertisements illustrate ideals to be emulated while propelling stereotypes. Sexual images of men provide understandings for men what it means to be masculine, chiseled and a buff six-pack. No one I would encounter at Allegheny looks like and of the men in Dolce & Gabbana Ads I see. Even models are photo-shopped and airbrushed and they are supposed to be the standards of beauty. Ads provide norms and standards albeit oftentimes exaggerated ones. The exaggeration of male and female bodies is a capitalist ploy to keep the consumer engaged in a constant attempt to achieve an impossible ideal because the images themselves are inhuman. This tactic keeps the consumer returning for the unachievable which is fueled by the desire to fulfill gender. Do advertisements just play upon the already docile beings we are like Foucault says? It is our docility that reinforces narrow constructions of what it is to be embodied. How do we go about addressing this docility?

Where does the ownership of our bodies actually lie? I would argue that none of use are autonomous but where is the line drawn on ownership of our bodies, especially when we are so easily influenced by advertisements.