Monday 18 November 2013

The problem with Feminist language


I feel that the biggest problem holding back a more effective discussion about gender equality is a problem of language.  What is alienating about the feminist movement is the use of somewhat exclusionary language.  I think in order to reach a broader spectrum of people, language must be carefully used when hashing out the important issues.

When driving any kind of revolution forward, I think it’s natural to create an ingroup.  This ingroup will automatically empathize with its own members.  This causes a kind of doublespeak in some internal dialogues.  Out of convenience, these movements will create their own words to describe certain concepts.   Like any kind of political party, nationality or ideology, it’s members know more about the “real” issues than outsiders.  Projecting an image of ignorance and incredulity on the outsiders of the movement.  

I’ve been a part of many of these ingroups which create their own mini-languages to explain the paradigm they’re attempting to overthrow.  Its very easy to sink into a closed off intellectual bubble, where only those who are inside can understand what you are talking about.  This becomes problematic when you attempt to relay these concepts to outsiders.  This is especially problematic if your bubble is intent on overturning the current system and replacing with their own way.  

It can be most easily seen in religious movements.  its very hard for religious to address the outside world if they’re so enveloped in the language of their tradition.  Words and phrases like “redemption”, “fear of God’ and “sinner” probably have a much different meaning to those who hear them outside of their religious contexts.  This can only alienate and confuse those well-intentioned outsiders.

This unfortunately, I feel is true about the feminist movement.  Any kind of group with an “ism” at the end of their name is going to encounter alienation problems.  While the ideas behind the movement are by and large good, they present an unpleasant and alien image to the outside.  The feminist movement is appealing to those who are already alienated from the male-dominated culture.  It’s language is appealing to those who have found alienation and emptiness in gender identities.  But it’s true intention is to change the culture.  It’s not going to be attractive to those still fully connected to the gender system who in fact need feminism the most.  

The first language problem I think stops most people is the use of the word “Feminism”.  “ism” is a sure sign of a political ideology.  The root, “feminine” denotes the inclusion of the female sex as the biggest component.  The word by itself is exclusionary to anything masculine.  If someone sympathizes with feminism as a man, they often must caveat their identity with “male-feminist”.  I believe that the true ideals of “feminism” would not need anyone to declare their gender identity.  

I think the word “feminism” is creating a problem that is counterproductive to it’s own cause.  Because of its name, it’s creating an ingroup of people, simply based on a single sex or a gender. Naturally It will gather together people who are alienated and angry at the gendered system we live in.  

Its a stereotype and an oversimplification of feminists that they are “angry at men”.  For the most part, I agree that its just a stereotype.  But even the most offensive stereotypes have their origins in some kind of small truth. To illustrate this point, I would compare this to people calling atheists “angry at God”.  While the atheist would say that they don’t even believe in God’s existence.  The theist may not properly comprehend the very idea of a godless world.  They can’t truly understand the mentality of an atheist.  So, to them it looks as if the atheist is behaving like a rebellious teenager against a parent.

When someone says “Feminists are just angry and hate men.”  That person is probably well situated deep inside the gendered system.  To an outsider, all they see is a group of upset women.  Since this person takes the notion of “men and women” for granted, who else can feminists be possibly angry at?  They are like the theist who doesn’t understand the mindset of a person without a belief in God.  The outsider to feminism doesn’t understand that the whole dichotomous gender system is what is being targeted, not men.  They can’t understand a world without gender as a personal identity.  Gender is such an important part of their world, its very hard to see these issues without it.  The word “feminist” enforces that mentality with its inherent dichotomy of feminine versus masculine.        

Are there feminists who do actually just hate men? Sure, I wouldn’t bet against it.  But they’re no different than those men who hate women.  I would say that these people have legitimate complaints about their gender and its relationship to the “opposite”.  But this negative energy is just missdirected.  Without recognizing the real source of their issues.     
       
I should expand this to all kinds of movements that are attempting to change gender and sexuality in our culture.  I truly believe these groups are trying to change the world for the better.  But the way they’re presented to the world is often in an unfavorable light.  Its often because of the language used.    

Words like “patriarchy”, “hegemonic masculinity”, “CISgender” “rape-culture”, “male privilege” have a way of unconsciously talking down to those who don’t know their meaning.  How many letters have to be added to the LGBTQ..(?) abbreviation to be politically correct?  Is it offensive to call someone “transvestite?”, “transexual?”, “transgendered?”.  It feels like if I don’t know the correct term, I’m a bigot.  It’s these sorts of concepts only privy to insiders have an alienating effect to those outside.

The word “rape-culture” is one such example of a topic worth addressing that is alienating to those who don’t know what it is.  When I first encountered the concept of rape-culture, it was in a dialogue in a university newspaper. I found the term to be unnecessarily aggressive and shrill.  Whoever was arguing against rape-culture, the writing seemed to be coming from a place of high emotion.  I can totally understand why.  But keep in mind, that kind of passion will be alienating to men who’ve never heard of it.  I was one of those men.  I didn’t know what it was, but the article certainly didn’t win me over.  From then on I associated that term with an air of confrontational feminism, which I had no desire becoming a part of.  As a man, “rape-culture” made me feel guilty by association.  I’m the one of most timid guys you’ll ever meet.  I felt I would never do anything to enable that kind of behaviour.  All it did was make me even more confused than I already was about how to behave around women I was attracted to.  

Keep in mind, I’m not trying to discredit any of the facts about rape culture.  I’m just trying to point out how the concept isn’t the most endearing to those uneducated.  Many men are probably now feeling the same way I used to about “rape-culture”.  

 It wasn’t until I took a sociology of gender course, that I began to really understand these issues.  It took maturing and self examination to see feminism as a good thing.  But it took a process of becoming fluent in feminist language to fully grasp what the intent was.  To be clear, I’m not proposing any kind of alternative to the words we use.  I wouldn’t know where to start.  I’m just trying to illustrate some of the unintended problems that naturally occur in social movements and language.       

Thursday 7 November 2013

2001: A Space Odyssey

Stanley Kubrick’s movie 2001: A space Odyssey is a film filled with philosophical, scientific and religious themes.  Like many of Kubrick’s works, this is a film that has and will be analyzed over and over again, as long as screens to watch films exist.  It has come to a point where its very difficult to find new meanings in this film that someone hasn't already found and deconstructed to the last frame.  This is one such depth analysis of the film so If you have not seen it, I recommend that you do.  Its the granddaddy of all science fiction films.

In my research in reading blogs and watching Youtube videos about the meanings of 2001, I’ve realized how complicated and symbolically dense people seem to think it is.  Its a film where it’s cult following may have read too much into its meanings than the creator may have intended.  It’s taken on a life of its own like a book of scripture.  But, much like the canons of religious texts, it may not matter what the writer intended it to mean.  What matters most is what the audience takes from the text.  That is what is worth talking about.  Since its had such a profound effect on the speculative fiction that followed 2001, I think its worth talking about some of the ideas I took from this film and other people’s analysis of it.  I will talk about the ideas of human progress that are most prominent in the film.  As well as the themes of a future transcendence that is creeping into our cultural and religious zeitgeist.  What role does what we think of as “God” play in this film?

Why is studying the bible interesting?  There are many reasons of course.  But what what is least interesting to me is whether or not these events actually occurred.  Its not very interesting to ask what the authors of these texts intended to mean when they wrote them.  What is most fascinating is to study these texts from a retrospective point of view.  Its interesting to see the profound effect on our culture throughout the centuries that the writings of the bible have had.  It’s only as important as the people who read them say it is.  People who believe that the bible is the actual word of god, will read deep meaning into any given passage.  Of course depending on the religious context it is read.  I think the same is true for 2001.  Kubrick is known for his deep subliminal messaging and hidden meanings in his films.  Because of this, people will read as much meaning as they want to into every scene from 2001.  People watching 2001 in the year 2013 may find different meaning in this film than someone watching it in 1968.

If the books of the bible had fallen into obscurity shortly after they were written, they would not contain all the meanings they do now.  Even if they had been written word for word, they wouldn't mean anything religiously significant.  Similarly, if 2001 or Kubrick had not found the cult following of the counter-culture youth of the sixties, the film would probably not have the kind of thematic influence it has today.  Adding to the film’s mystique, Stanley Kubrick has since passed away.  So this leaves only the audience to speculate and exaggerate what this film really means.  But despite my cynicism of this cult-film phenomena, I think 2001 has some very worthwhile subjects worth talking about.

The most important message I took from 2001 was the evolutionary direction the human race seems to be going.  The ominous, rectangular monolith that appears before the characters at crucial points of the movie, signifies an evolutionary quantum leap.  These leaps are significant to our religious sensibilities because the film seems to point the human race in a direction of ascension to transcendental god-hood.  Stanley Kubrick conveniently sidesteps the hornets nest of directly commenting on religion or God by representing the divine as a race of super-intelligent, unseen extraterrestrials.


The first important evolutionary jump was made when early hominids learned to use tools, hunt for meat and wage war.  We continued on this technological path for 4 million years.  We are shown this linear progression with the juxtaposed scene of the tossed animal bone cut to directly to the spacecraft.  The next evolutionary leap we are shown is directly after the second appearance of the monolith.  The story proceeding the moon monolith scene is about the emergence of an artificial intelligence.  The invention of A.I is the most important technological event we as a species, see on the horizon of technological progression.  It will be the most significant event in human history since we developed the ability to control fire or the invention of tools.
2001 Space Odyssey Dawn of Man

The computer program Hal 9000, seems to develop a true sentience during the Jupiter mission, by demonstrating human characteristics.  Hal lies to his human masters about his true intentions.  When Hal kills the human Frank Poole, he shows a sentient desire to be free.   He also demonstrates flawed logic despite his apparently flawless programming by allowing David Bowman to survive.  He shows a desire to live and a fear of death.  The roles of man and machine are seemingly swapped as Bowman shows a machine like ruthlessness when he deactivates the computer while “it” begs for mercy.  Its interesting to note that Kubrick adds in subtle stabs at IBM with the Hal 9000 character.  Alphabetically the letters H-A-L are all one letter removed from I-B-M.  The IBM logo appears in various scenes.  When Hal is being deactivated, he sings the song “Daisy”.  In 1961 IBM scientists created the first computer so synthesize singing, the song they first had it sing was in fact “Daisy”.

2001-ibm
The next quantum leap is represented when Bowman encounters the monolith in orbit around Jupiter.  In the story, the monoliths are supposed to be artifacts left by extra-terrestrial intelligence.  Whenever humans come into contact with them, they gain some sort of knowledge left behind by the extraterrestrials.  In the third encounter, the meaning of the knowledge or power that is imparted onto Bowman is very cryptic on screen.  This part of the film is where an endless amount of symbolism and meaning can be gleaned by its viewers.  (Whether or not Kubrick intended them to).
Bowman is thrust through a psychedelic tunnel of information and colored light.  Then possibly witnesses a abridged narrative of the universe’s history.  He apparently sees the big bang and the expansion of the universe.  Then he sees the development of life and a tour of unknown alien worlds.  The way I saw this sequence, Bowman had an encounter with an incredibly higher form of intelligence attempting to impart it’s knowledge onto him.  The way this experience is portrayed on film is analogous to a powerful psychedelic drug experience.  This movie was released during the peak of the introduction of LSD among the counterculture of the sixties.  I think the significance of the imagery of Bowman’s experience would not have been lost on those who would have experienced similar things with LSD.
The "Star Gate" sequence, one of man...
He then finds himself inside a renaissance styled hotel room viewing himself in the third person, rapidly age and his own bodily death.  In a making-of documentary I watched according to one of the commentators, the sterile hotel room was supposed to be a kind of human nursery.  The same way human beings would construct a familiar jungle environment for gorillas in a zoo, the higher intelligence provides a familiar human setting for Bowman.
30-bedroom
The fourth and final encounter with the monolith occurs at the moment of Bowman’s apparent bodily death.  What the monolith gives him is a rebirth, over the Earth as some sort ethereal being.  “The Starchild”.  Its representative of what we see ourselves eventually becoming.  We aspire to become that which we've always felt we are.  We’re animals but we feel like we’re more than the sum of the flesh and blood we’re made of.  We feel angelic but trapped in the shell of an ape.  One of organized religion’s main purpose is to address that very feeling.  This film is a story of our struggle towards that ineffable other we can sense.  The film represents the other with an extraterrestrial artifact.  The ominous tone of the monolith encounters signify our simultaneous fear and fascination with something so alien and ineffable.  Our religious traditions have the same kind of fear and reverence towards their transcendental object, usually God.
Star_Child___from___2001___by_Lukasx
A very interesting blog I found explained to me the symbolism of the monolith.


The Monolith is supposed to represent a movie screen.  Proportionally, its the same size as the screen that 2001 was intended to be shown on.  The creepy music that plays during the monolith encounters, is also played during the intermission of the film.  The intermission is a blank movie screen.  So you are actually staring at the monolith itself.

movie-screen
Now, heres where I go off the deep end of crazy.
In the film when the monolith/film screen is encountered, the characters begin to realize they are inside a movie.  This makes sense to me as a philosophical principle.  Every time the characters encounter the monolith, they achieve another level of intelligence.  The movie screen is a feedback loop of awareness.  An evolutionary step.  They become more self aware when they look inwards at themselves and they realize what the game is.

bowman helmet reflect
 In real world, sentience is achieved once the agents realize the matrix they’re inside of.  Humans achieved a higher level of sentience when they began to realize what kind of biological game they’re a part of.  We started using tools and technology to “hack the system”.  The first monolith encounter was supposed to represent this.  The second encounter was supposed to represent when human created technology(Hal 9000) will reach a higher level of intelligence.  The last two monolith encounters represent transcendence to higher forms of being we may see in our future.
The last thing I’d like to point out is the period of chronological time between each monolith encounter.  Between the first and second monolith there is a period of millions of years.  Between the second and third, there is a period of 18 months.  Between the third and fourth encounter, there are only minutes.  This may have just been the way the film turned out.  It may have been unintentional, but to me this is significant.  If this is a film commenting on the progression of the human race, it would be helpful to notice the pattern in time in the way progress seems to follow.  Each major evolutionary step happens in shorter and shorter intervals.  I’m reminded of Carl Sagan’s cosmic calendar from the old TV show, Cosmos.
cosmiccalendar
Whatever.  That was only my interpretation of it.  Take what you want out of this review.  but more importantly, watch this movie for yourself.  What hidden cryptic messages can you find?  Did Kubrick produce a film to demonstrate that he helped fake the moon landing? Or did Kubrick predict a race space fetuses invading earth? Who knows.