Friday, September 14, 2007

doctrine of the separate spheres

If the personal is political, then there is no private/public split.

And if there is no private/public distinction, there are no men and women.

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

2 comments:

Kelly said...

why? i've tried to follow your thoughts on this one but i think i need some elaboration... i'm curious.

September 16, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Vanessa said...

The historical division of the sexes has been predicated on (and justified by) this notion of the separate spheres, specifically the private/public split. The opposite but complimentary nature of men and women parallels the opposite but complimentary elements of home and office. In this view, both binaries are mutually dependent on one another.

Radical feminism (I want to say in the 1960's) coined an extremely poignant catchphrase, "the personal is political." This therefore implied that the home and outside worlds were not separate entities, and that each actually shaped the other. This is evident in every aspect of life, and throughout time. Tribal peoples gained allies and security through kinships, which is why exchanging women in a gift economy was crucial to survival—and thus political needs shaped sexual economies and made women objects, operating within a heterosexual framework.

The same can be said in ancient Greece, where views of women as inferior, coupled with glorifications of the male, set the scene for culturally sanctioned same-sex relations among men.

How you dress, who you sleep with, who you are, how you view yourself...these are all things that are shaped by the socio-politics of the time...and culture is indeed a political product. Consider the way in which bi-racial marriages were illegal, gay marriage is illegal...I think sodomy is still illegal in some states. Even your sexual positions are political.

Whatever aspect of your life is most private, it is indeed a political affair. Some areas that were once considered private move readily into the public.

Example: spanking children. Once considered the personal affair of parents, it is now being debated on the public forum.

This idea is also highlighted with the Patriot Act, which finds the private so crucial to the public that illegal surveillance can now monitors personal exchanges for national security.

Presidential candidates will tell you the personal is political. Why else would it matter if you have a wife, what religion you are, what is your racial composition, how many divorces you have?

In the beginning, I claimed that the binaries of man/women and private/public depend on one another. If you accept that the personal is political, than the binary of private/public is shat upon.

Then the basis of men in opposition to woman has no justification, has no compliment--it no longer has a foundation. It, like the doctrine of the separate spheres, is a form of propaganda (maybe even subconscious) that withholds power from the masses, who fail to realize the political charge in all facets of life, and who fail to take ownership in realizing its implications and potential.

When I say there are no men and women, I refer not to anatomical distinctions (which there is much debate whether there are only two sexes...check out Lessons from the Intersexed, by Kessler)...I mean there are no men and women in terms of two groups with inherent distinctions and innate characteristics. I claim that humans are born and sifted through the political institutions of male and female.

Their distinction, like the private/public split, is a false interpretation, or invention of sorts (much like phrenology), that serves to substantiate infinite power arrangements that make up our society, and to uphold the dehumanizing tenants of compulsory heterosexuality.

September 16, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)