Does anybody remember the debate at the NAACP when justice Thomas was nominated? It was a real problem for that body that identifies its success by the "advancement of colored people."
Thomas was black and he was advancing. Thomas was also desperately out of step politically with the vast majority of black people. It was a question of conflicting identities. On the one hand the members of the club wanted to see a black supreme court justice, but on the other they also wanted a justice who would advance their political point of view. The NAACP did not endorse Thomas in the end. In a remarkably race neutral decision for a group that identifies itself on racial grounds it decided that the advancement of a political point of view was more important that the advancement of one colored person.
I see this happening all over again today. Self identified feminists tend to embrace a leftist philosophy. But they also define themselves as proponents of female advancement. The nomination of Palin has put these two truths in conflict for many women in the country.
While the oppression of women in history is much different (though no less reprehensible) from that of Blacks I wonder whether a similar dynamic to the Clarence Thomas nomination might develop among left-leaning women regarding Palin. Will a feminist really vote against the only female on a major party ticket? I suspect that they will, because just like the NAACP, feminists are interested in the advancement of the right women. And... that's okay! Any time people want to identify themselves with something they believe rather than something they just happen to be all of us are advanced.
What do you think? Will McCain get more votes from disenchanted Hillary folks because of Palin? Will there be at least a little regret among women who vote for Obama?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
C'mon now, Fryer. As a self-identified feminist, I don't define myself as a "proponent of female advancement" per se, I just expect women's advancement to come as a result of their finally getting treated like people and given a fair shot at things (a consequence of "the revolution," if you will). I don't want to see an equal number of any old women being shoved onto tickets and then having all of their accomplishments--or the mistakes that they make as inexperienced politicians--somehow being blamed on me because I'm also a woman. I don't want to see some anti-choice, anti-woman woman running for the Republican VP spot quoting Hillary Clinton, then watch Hillary Clinton respond to having her words misused, and then see the media paint the whole thing as a wild catfight. This is not progress, and I'm insulted--but not surprised--that the McCain campaign would consider me stupid enough to think that it is.
Incidentally, it's interesting that you'd bring up the Thomas thing, since it also had that feminist angle in the Hill allegations, which put many women of color in a really awkward place. Which brings me to the fact that women of color are almost always ignored in the media. Which might explain why many self-identified feminist voters in non-swing states don't know that they could be voting for Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente. Which I might do, if Obama supporters get nasty enough in their vilification of women of any color or creed. Because it's misogyny from the Obama campaign that would make it hard for me to vote for Obama, not some transparent attempt by the McCain campaign to convince me that look, he must love women all of a sudden.
If you believe in rational self-interest, all women in a sense are feminists if they are proponent of female advancement. But the trick about it is what point each woman views as an advance. Left-leaning feminists alone come (to be a bit general) in two flavors. While radicals who tend to see advancement as per them acting as the vanguard for advancement, progressive feminists are the pragmatic bunch who look for the more practical goals. In other words, radicals tend to be more expressive and progressives more instrumental in their politics. It takes a real go-getter of a revolutionary for a feminist to tailor their expression to reach both instrumental and expressive ends.
However, I think there are certainly right-leaning feminists. A suitable parallel for mainstream feminism and the supposedly unorthodoxy of non-left ideology is that between the mainstream of the black community and somebody like Shelby Steele. Whereas feminists on the left, driven by the overall mentality of politics on the left, tend to seek recognition and applaud action from the state first and foremost. Meanwhile, I think, the rare right-leaning feminists, adapting the right's minarchist tendencies, mourn the heavy hand the state has on gender relations. After all, if the modern state of feminism is the seeking of affirmation for a raised female stature in society, doesn't Margaret Thatcher in a sense raise her gender a few notches (as an image of female PM or simply through her immense influence), albeit in a way unconventional to most feminists?
To get back to my example: when most advocates for race relations applaud (in regards to collegiate acceptance) affirmative action for bringing about progress to marginalized people, Shelby Steele attacks the policy for stripping minority students' pride for their own achievements.
That being said, I think Palin isn't a very powerful running mate. She isn't an elder stateswoman as Hillary most certainly was, and there's not guarantee that Palin can dish out the GOP's standby states ("the L" of Bible belt/interior states running down to Florida and up to Ohio and Illinois) with anymore efficacy as Mike Huckabee, let alone Mitt Romney. Sure she's young and fiery and pretty, but I don't think she really has the genuine charisma that Obama has. And for Hillary's PUMAs (Pary Unity My Ass), she's pro-life (strike one), she's very conservative in terms of environmental policy including being for ANWR (strike two), and it's safe to say her energy policy varies from Hillary (strike three). There's just no close similarities to attract Hillary supporters.
Ariel,
It's a strange thing this identity politics isn't it? I'm in full agreement with you about Palin and respect your reason for not voting for her.
Let's talk about McKinney for a second. Should colored women vote for her because she's a colored woman? McKinney has engaged in some pretty crazy rhetoric (EX: Bush was responsible for Katrina in 2005). He might be the most powerful man in the world, but I'm pretty sure meteorological events are beyond his ability to conjure.
Shouldn't thinking women of color vote the same way thinking women not of color vote? And, following your objection to Palin as a woman but not the right woman, should not women of color abandon their identity-based voting entirely and just vote for the ticket that most closely resembles there political ideology?
I actually think that identity politics has it's place, there's a real reason why we're comfortable with folks from our own culture group. As such I'm sure Palin will attract some women, just because she's a She. Thus, the tension between ideology and identity is revived just like it was during Thomas' nomination...
James--
To put it briefly: I vote for feminists, not for women. Women, I tend to think, are more likely to be feminists.
And yes, in a perfect world, perhaps all thinking people would vote similarly and without "identity politics." But in the world where we live, many "thinking" white/male people don't have to face their privilege and don't tend to vote for people who are concerned with the rights of nonwhite/nonmale people. Less privileged people don't have the luxury of separating their pure, altruistic "political ideology" from their basic human rights when voting. So yes, although I don't think women of color are the only people who could ever represent the (certainly varied) interests of women of color, I do think they're somewhat more likely to understand what they're facing, to see them as people, to think they have a right to exist in our society and to control their own bodies and lives. These are, I should remind you, not qualities I take for granted in politicians.
Post a Comment