Monday, January 27, 2014

Immature Freedoms, Solidarity, And The Privileged Feminists: A Response To A Response of A Critique of Capitalized Feminism
Or
Why I Am Too Broke To Be An Effective Feminist

I apologize, I may be all over the place with this. I beg your patience, and perhaps we can work through this.

In Bell Hooks' response, a number of keypoints were made critically viewing Sheryl Sandberg's recent success through Fraser's lens. To give a little background into the “atmosphere” of Sandberg, recently she crossed over the barrier and leaned into the billionaire's club. Well done to her. What she accomplished is the following:

-Formidable financial Success
-Post-Oprah Influence
-Capitalist success through apparently feminist means

Regarding the latter, I think what Bell Hooks is saying is that appearances can be deciving. By Sandberg arguing her success as a victory for feminism through feminism, she creates a beacon out of her own experience. Rather than this showing other feminists a possible path out of their own oppression, it shows them how to navigate through it. Rather than serving Feminism, her story is used to serve patriarchal capitalism.

I'm not sure of whether this is dangerous, or embarrassing. To explain what I mean by this, I would like to frame the Sandberg experience through Simone De Beauvoir's notions of “Freedom”. In “The Ethics Of Ambiguity”, Beauvoir defines Freedom by hierarchizing it into degrees of maturity. Those with a freedom exhibiting a relatively low level of maturity tend to be happier with what appears to be success. This is what is called the Slave's Freedom. The Slave is “free” in that they can make decisions and assert their own experience within the context defined for them by the Master. This is dangerous for the slave, because satisfaction in the appearance of freedom prevents the slave from wanting to dismantle the binds that ensnare them. I say “embarrassing”, because to the Master, the slave thinking they are free eliminates the threat that could have challenged the Master. A slave thinking they are in a position of self-determination is easily manipulated for the gains of the master. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, the reader, for sticking with me long enough for me to finally get back to the initial topic.

Sandberg working through Patriarchal Capitalism, even to become one of the Big Dogs, is nice and all, but how does it help feminism? How does it help Feminism to lean in? The critique as I see it, is one shared by Bhandar and Silva as well. Sandberg is a privilieged feminist, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to ascend to where she is now. Not to say that she didn't have to work hard, to give her all due merit. But the idea that hard work alone will make you a billionaire is too simplistic. The rich don't own a monopoly on hard work. The lower class, the young (and in debt), and persons of color (women of color in particular) all have their share of hard workers. And yet we still have poor people, and jobless college graduates of all majors all trying to fight whatever stigmas prevent them from finding success. Implied in leaning in is the notion that there is enough solidarity for everyone to yield the same result when they lean in. I don't know about you, but when considering the act of leaning in, anytime in my life when I've had to lean in to try and join a group, I was reminded constantly that this conglomeration did not have my membership in mind in the first place. It does not matter how friendly and welcoming they are to me, my presence, or my experience, the fact remains that if I join in, I join in whatever is already established.

For Sandberg to acknowledge the difficulty in universalizing her advice, it would require a paradigm shift. I'm not sure exactly, but I'm leaning towards a shift in understanding that the only solidarity is recognition that there is no true solidarity; “no way as way”. And that is hard to accept, isn't it? After all, it worked for me, and I am a feminist, and I affirmed my femininity in a male dominated world, and I showed them that I could handle myself with the boys, and I value people who care for me, and I didn't stop caring for them, and I made a billion, and isn't that what feminism is about? If it walks like a cat, acts like a cat, looks like a cat, sounds like a cat, it could instead be a kitten.

4 comments:

  1. Hi Nii--I really like your line "Rather than this showing other feminists a possible path out of their own oppression, it shows them how to navigate through it." That's a great and clear way to put it.

    I want to push your point about "solidarity." Why is "solidarity" (and what do we mean by this anyway?) often seen as a necessary political means (or even end)? Or, why do we think of working together in terms of "solidarity"? What are the politics of this? I"m thinking of this question especially in light of the #solidarityisforwhitewomen discussion that happened on twitter a few months ago. https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=%23solidarityisforwhitewomen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nii, think you made some excellent points here and one line stood out to me in particular, “I joined what has already been established.” I liked this comment a lot because it illustrated what Sandberg did very well. And yes, she was already in a position of privilege but patriarchy has used folks who aren’t in positions of privilege before to push agendas. That being said, I liked hook’s comment “…for it is only as we place her in the overall frame of female cultural icons that we can truly unpack and understand why she has been chosen and lifted up in the neoliberal marketplace.” This kind of sounds like it’s in line with your answer to solidarity.

      Delete
  2. I would like to see you further discuss the ramifications of solidarity, and relatability. What kind of insidiousness is relatability within this neoliberal context? Especially considering ideals, and implicit/tacit complacency to a system that functions on the demise of those who do not fall in accordance to ideals of the white supremacist heteropatriarchal power structure within which we live? I mean, just about EVERYTHING is worth something, especially identity. How could solidarity, resilience, and relatability among marginalized populations play RIGHT into the role laid out for us within this neoliberal power frame!?! I think you're RIGHT on point with the title of your post, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Nii! Great post; I specifically very much appreciate your explanation of Sandberg’s notions being dangerous versus embarrassing and the variations of how freedom can be interpreted with reference to Simone De Beauvoir. I think it is the perfect analogy in terms of better understanding how Sandberg believes that what she has done is possible for whomever else who puts in the effort, when in reality, she is still a “slave” to the patriarchal system and is now basically promoting it to everyone else by encouraging them to work within the system. It is infuriating to me that she has brought feminism into this and is basically “redefining” it based on her own privileged experiences and selling it in that way.

    ReplyDelete