(no subject)
Understanding the un-stated principles, or conceptual foundations, of our culture is essential in effort to deconstruct and reshape the causes and conditions of violence. Bell Hooks revealed that our tolerance for international warfare and militarism stems from Western society’s un-stated acceptance of physical violence as a legitimate tool at the authority figure’s disposal; basically, mothers who spank their children ingrain them with the message that violent force is and appropriate means of establishing dominance and maintaining order (Hooks, Feminist Theory 117-132). Formal militaristic violence, facilitated by the cultural sanction of violence itself, and gender violence, stemming from the culturally accepted hierarchical division of the sexes, are both based on a broader and more deeply ingrained conceptual foundation in the West: domination as the natural order.
Valerie Plumwood describes in her book, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, that the underlying principles of human existence that we are socialized to accept from birth all assume the right of one to dominate the other ( 42, 48, 56, 82). In the Western understanding of existence, the world have been divided up into many different conceptual and concrete dualisms that establish one side as the ruler and the other as the ruled. The ruled side, making up the bottom of the dualistic divide, is defined in relation to the ruler side as inferior to, incomplete in comparison, and in need of the guiding and deciding authority of the ruler (47-48, 52-53). The dualistic structure grants not only authority to the ruler, or superior, but with it also autonomy, inherent worth, subjectivity, and creative power; in contrast, the inferior side is seen to be essentially constrained, the object, irrelevant, and inert. The Western conceptual system is structured around the dualistic divide, which creates sets “interrelated and mutually reinforcing” separations (42). While these divides do not always seem obvious, they are deeply ingrained within us and translate into major forms of oppression, discrimination, and violence in our society.
One of the most basic and pervasive dualisms is that which pits reason over nature. The reason/nature dualism plays a key role in our conceptual structure because “virtually everything on the ‘superior’ side can be represented as forms of reason, and virtually everything on the underside can be represented as forms of nature” (44). The reason/nature dualism ordains the human capacity for forward-thinking, subject-hood, creativity, and logic supreme governance over all that is physical, biological, emotive, and base. God, or logos, is defined by Plato as that which bestows the ‘law of nature’ upon a random, chaotic world. God “imposes on the natural disorder of nature a properly regular, rational and perfect shape” (84). This idea, God as the supreme reasoner, provides a linkage between those qualities of humanity and the ‘divine,’ inherently granting unchallengeable authority to humankind. Human beings, therefore, are not only allowed to, but compelled to, radically intrumentalize and violently manipulate nature so that it may serve the needs of humanity.
Thus, the reason/nature dualism is most closely related to the human/nature dualism, which provides the conceptual framework for understanding why consideration for the environment, is absent from the development of science and design, and also morality. As the underside of the dualistic structure is objectified and reordered to serve humankind’s means, it is not rationalized as suffering damage or bearing offense. I do not mean to imply that there is no environmentalism or that no one notices pollution. I am simply saying that at a very basic level, as Western civilization develops scientific knowledge, and while that knowledge is practically applied through the formulation and creation of industrial systems, nature is not considered; and when it is, it is not considered as a moral issue. The needs of those entities that are identified as belonging to ‘nature’ are not only ignored but direct assaults against them are deemed circumstantial because nature is “not part of the sphere to be considered morally, [it is] either judged by a separate instrumental standard…or seen as outside morality altogether” (53). This is evident in that environmental concerns are largely an extension of enlightened self interest, as we notice only that environmental destruction has the potential to threaten our existence. The dismissal of nature’s needs does not end with environmentalism however, because the human/nature dualism is a broad, generally categorical term: just as ‘reason’ refers to ‘human,’ ‘human’ delineates into ‘man,’ and, concurrently, ‘nature’ into ‘woman.’
The human/nature dualism, which is conspicuously also called ‘man vs. nature,’ is the overarching concept behind the male/female dualism. The male/female dualism not only puts biological ‘man and woman’ into hierarchical order, but, more generally, everything masculine over feminine. Within the dualistic structure that supplies our civilization’s conceptual grounding, femininity is associated with nature because it is defined by its terms; womanhood belongs to “such ‘natural’ areas of human life as reproduction;” womanhood exhibits “the qualities of … necessity, particularity and emotionality;” it is characterized by reaction instead of action, body instead of reason (34, 45). Adhering consistently to the dualism model, the feminine ‘qualities’ are, in actuality, conditional lacks of that which is considered masculine. Maleness is defined by the terms of “objectivity, abstractness, rationality, and suppression of emotionality;” masculinity can be understood as that which exhibit’s the characteristic “transcendence of, control of and struggle with nature” (28). Thus, the divide between masculinity and femininity, man and woman, as well as the hierarchical order of the two, is naturalized, or made to seem consistent with the conditions of reality. Men, exhibiting a truer and more noble capacity for reason, are closer to God in comparison with women, who posses traits more generally associated with nature. Therefore, as God rules over and gives order to the natural world, so must man rule over woman. This is the classic deduction portrayed in religion and other fundaments of our civilization. Misogyny is thus made to seem like a natural principle.
Dualisms, consistent throughout all the definitive comparisons, are basic to Western societies conceptual framework. This framework supports misogyny by naturalizing the domination of men over women. It also facilitates environmental degradation by neglecting the harmful impact of industrial development. These are not the only results. When one examined, these same underlying principles that cause sexism and misogyny, are what create racism, classism, ethnocentrism and anthropocentrism. Domination of one side, the white-male-elite, is expected to be the right and natural order of the world. In this view, combined with the right of the dominant to use violent force against the dominated, all forms of war and martial law can be considered tolerable and appropriate. This view is clearly wrong and its obviousness should inspire people to deconstruct the concepts behind it.
Valerie Plumwood describes in her book, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, that the underlying principles of human existence that we are socialized to accept from birth all assume the right of one to dominate the other ( 42, 48, 56, 82). In the Western understanding of existence, the world have been divided up into many different conceptual and concrete dualisms that establish one side as the ruler and the other as the ruled. The ruled side, making up the bottom of the dualistic divide, is defined in relation to the ruler side as inferior to, incomplete in comparison, and in need of the guiding and deciding authority of the ruler (47-48, 52-53). The dualistic structure grants not only authority to the ruler, or superior, but with it also autonomy, inherent worth, subjectivity, and creative power; in contrast, the inferior side is seen to be essentially constrained, the object, irrelevant, and inert. The Western conceptual system is structured around the dualistic divide, which creates sets “interrelated and mutually reinforcing” separations (42). While these divides do not always seem obvious, they are deeply ingrained within us and translate into major forms of oppression, discrimination, and violence in our society.
One of the most basic and pervasive dualisms is that which pits reason over nature. The reason/nature dualism plays a key role in our conceptual structure because “virtually everything on the ‘superior’ side can be represented as forms of reason, and virtually everything on the underside can be represented as forms of nature” (44). The reason/nature dualism ordains the human capacity for forward-thinking, subject-hood, creativity, and logic supreme governance over all that is physical, biological, emotive, and base. God, or logos, is defined by Plato as that which bestows the ‘law of nature’ upon a random, chaotic world. God “imposes on the natural disorder of nature a properly regular, rational and perfect shape” (84). This idea, God as the supreme reasoner, provides a linkage between those qualities of humanity and the ‘divine,’ inherently granting unchallengeable authority to humankind. Human beings, therefore, are not only allowed to, but compelled to, radically intrumentalize and violently manipulate nature so that it may serve the needs of humanity.
Thus, the reason/nature dualism is most closely related to the human/nature dualism, which provides the conceptual framework for understanding why consideration for the environment, is absent from the development of science and design, and also morality. As the underside of the dualistic structure is objectified and reordered to serve humankind’s means, it is not rationalized as suffering damage or bearing offense. I do not mean to imply that there is no environmentalism or that no one notices pollution. I am simply saying that at a very basic level, as Western civilization develops scientific knowledge, and while that knowledge is practically applied through the formulation and creation of industrial systems, nature is not considered; and when it is, it is not considered as a moral issue. The needs of those entities that are identified as belonging to ‘nature’ are not only ignored but direct assaults against them are deemed circumstantial because nature is “not part of the sphere to be considered morally, [it is] either judged by a separate instrumental standard…or seen as outside morality altogether” (53). This is evident in that environmental concerns are largely an extension of enlightened self interest, as we notice only that environmental destruction has the potential to threaten our existence. The dismissal of nature’s needs does not end with environmentalism however, because the human/nature dualism is a broad, generally categorical term: just as ‘reason’ refers to ‘human,’ ‘human’ delineates into ‘man,’ and, concurrently, ‘nature’ into ‘woman.’
The human/nature dualism, which is conspicuously also called ‘man vs. nature,’ is the overarching concept behind the male/female dualism. The male/female dualism not only puts biological ‘man and woman’ into hierarchical order, but, more generally, everything masculine over feminine. Within the dualistic structure that supplies our civilization’s conceptual grounding, femininity is associated with nature because it is defined by its terms; womanhood belongs to “such ‘natural’ areas of human life as reproduction;” womanhood exhibits “the qualities of … necessity, particularity and emotionality;” it is characterized by reaction instead of action, body instead of reason (34, 45). Adhering consistently to the dualism model, the feminine ‘qualities’ are, in actuality, conditional lacks of that which is considered masculine. Maleness is defined by the terms of “objectivity, abstractness, rationality, and suppression of emotionality;” masculinity can be understood as that which exhibit’s the characteristic “transcendence of, control of and struggle with nature” (28). Thus, the divide between masculinity and femininity, man and woman, as well as the hierarchical order of the two, is naturalized, or made to seem consistent with the conditions of reality. Men, exhibiting a truer and more noble capacity for reason, are closer to God in comparison with women, who posses traits more generally associated with nature. Therefore, as God rules over and gives order to the natural world, so must man rule over woman. This is the classic deduction portrayed in religion and other fundaments of our civilization. Misogyny is thus made to seem like a natural principle.
Dualisms, consistent throughout all the definitive comparisons, are basic to Western societies conceptual framework. This framework supports misogyny by naturalizing the domination of men over women. It also facilitates environmental degradation by neglecting the harmful impact of industrial development. These are not the only results. When one examined, these same underlying principles that cause sexism and misogyny, are what create racism, classism, ethnocentrism and anthropocentrism. Domination of one side, the white-male-elite, is expected to be the right and natural order of the world. In this view, combined with the right of the dominant to use violent force against the dominated, all forms of war and martial law can be considered tolerable and appropriate. This view is clearly wrong and its obviousness should inspire people to deconstruct the concepts behind it.