the personal is political

Although this essay of mine fails to explicitly articulate my belief that there are no men and women (only bodies assigned particular identities by virtue of "nature"), it does explore my disbelief in the private/public split:

“Biological” differences have relegated women to the private sphere and men to the public. Fundamental to these assignments is a notion of distinction and polarity; each binary depends on validates the other. Thus, the private/public split has perpetuated a male/female split and created particular destinies for particular bodies. However, both liberal and radical feminism have since engaged the private/public split and, in doing so, reveal that the personal is political. If private life is a political luxury, then inherent differences between the private and public spheres are ambiguous, subjective and culturally relevant—likewise overturning constitutive differences between men and women that have propagated patriarchal orders throughout history.

Seemingly counter-intuitive to the aforementioned argument, liberal feminism considers the private sphere as something separate from the state. Despite variations in liberal feminist ideology, a fundamental concept throughout holds that “a just society allows individuals to exercise their autonomy and to fulfill themselves” (p 10, Tong). Although liberal feminism endorses private liberties, a virtuous society must “allow” this right, and therefore it is clear that the degree of personal freedom available depends on the political context. Liberal feminism also recognizes an intersection of private and public, and in terms of state intervention in family or domestic society, liberals agree that less is more: “the less we see of Big Brother in our bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, recreation rooms and nurseries, the better,” (p 11, Tong). However, a closer look at the political agendas of liberal feminism reveals that Big Brother has been in the bedrooms and nurseries all along. By virtue of the fact that women were denied the right to vote and own property reflects the way in which attitudes and beliefs of women saturated the home and translated into law in the first place. Specifically in “democratic” governments, political actors are members of a home, and therefore political beliefs affect the organization of the private realm, and vice versa.

Although classical liberals favor a state which protects civil liberties and provides equal opportunity to a free market, welfare liberals idealize a state-focus on economic justice, because “individuals enter the market with differences based on initial advantage, inherent talent, and sheer luck,” (p11, Tong). While liberal feminism diverges into separate strains, welfare liberals recognize the interconnection between the private and public—and in the case of the economy, how the private realm can serve as a public advantage. Although liberal feminists do not deny a private/public split, the overlap between the two remains paramount, and boundaries are not necessarily distinguishable. The overlap can be analyzed from a theoretical perspective, and also from personal lens.

The life of Abigail Adams highlights the ambiguous boundaries of the private/public split. As wife to the second president, Adams’ personal life unfolded in an extremely political context. Touching on the public disenfranchisement of women in the private sphere, Adams comments, “Female education in the best of families went no further than writing and arithmetic; in some few instances, music and dancing,” (p 2, Schneir). While liberal feminists posit, “We all need places where we can, among family and friends, shed our public personae and become our ‘real’ selves,” (p 11, Tong), if a woman is playing piano in her free time, this seemingly recreational pastime is a political issue: who plays piano and why? Later in her life, Abigail Adams writes to her husband to be more “generous and favorable” to women in the new code of laws. It is significant to note that John Adams responded, “I cannot but laugh,” (p 4, Schneir)—demonstrating how his political stance does not waver in light of his wife’s plea, and its personal relevance. Whereas liberal feminism attacks women’s rights in the public (Abigail’s plea for new laws), radical feminism attacks male order at home (John Adam’s rejection and mockery).

Radical feminism reinforces the link between the public/private split, and in doing so, politicizes the home. Despite significant differences among branches of radical feminism, basic tenants include:

1. Women were historically the first oppressed group.

2. That women’s oppression is the most widespread, existing in virtually every known society.

3. Women’s oppression is the hardest form to eradicate and cannot be removed by other changes such as the abolition of class in society, (p 46, Tong).

Through these terms, the personal is political, in that the very organization of society is oppressive, and achieving equality involves an inordinate private and public overhaul. More so than liberal feminism, radical feminism highlights the ambiguous boundaries between men and women that mirror the ambiguous boundaries between the private and public. Radical-libertarian feminists typically advocate androgyny for women, while radical-cultural feminists reject this and instead emphasize “feminine” qualities. Both of these alternatives demonstrate the fluidity of male and female qualities, given the opposing resolutions by each branch of radical feminism. Perhaps the ambiguous boundaries between men and women are not well-supported if radical-libertarian feminists find gender malleable, and radical-cultural feminists find it a product of nature. However, “not all radical-cultural feminists believe male-female differences are rooted in nature. Some of them…think sex/gender flow not so much (if at all) from biology as from ‘socialization’ or ‘from the total history of existing as a woman in patriarchal society,” (p 48, Tong). Therefore, female behavior is can be seen as a long-term result of the private (and public) organization of women as inferior to men.

Unlike liberal feminism, radical feminism develops the idea of gender. Specifically, radical-libertarian feminists dismiss the connection between sex and gender. In other words, a woman is entitled to be masculine, and a male feminine, if one so chooses. This open approach to sex and gender rejects a rigid binary that perpetuates the passive female and the dominant male. If male and female qualities were unassigned, then power stratification would not regenerate men as the patriarchal heads throughout time. Abigail Adams, however, would not agree with this approach, as she finds men “naturally tyrannical,” (p 3, Schneir). However, liberal feminism is lacking in that it began the first wave of the women’s movement, and therefore was a primary theoretical framework. It is reasonable to assert that at this early stage of development, the affects of socialization were not yet realized and differences between men and women were considered still considered natural.

Despite Abigail Adams’ opinion on the natural state of the sexes, the work of liberal feminism still speaks to the inter-connection of the private and public sphere, and in doing so, the interconnection between men and women. As radical feminists further develop social factors of sex and the malleability of gender, absolute distinctions between male and female also become opaque. As binaries of men/women and private/public are complicated, broken, and perhaps even eradicated, it is clear that the personal is political. Although politics has allowed space for a private life, it is not clear that such a thing exists. If patriarchy is so engrained in society as to become invisible, then its affects are also unseen. Language, behavior, hobbies—a person’s entire private persona—is a socio-political product. Beyond sexism, current political ruckus such as the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act further confuse the boundaries between private and public, and emphasizes the fact that personal space is a political luxury that can be granted, and taken away. Although the extent to which private life exists can be argued, it is certain that their delineations are not as precise as Victorians would like them, thus overthrowing the patriarchal tenant that women belong in the home by virtue of their being women.