the face of the other
I borrowed the name of this piece from Levinas, even thought I can't profess to know much about the article whence it came. Regardless, I use it without shame.
Kristof's piece in the Times today referenced a gallop poll that claims "94 percent of Americans said they would vote for a black candidate for president and 88 percent for a woman", whereas a previous poll from a prior period professes that only 34 percent of people would vote for a Muslim. First off, I do not believe any statistical analysis that makes claims about the status of race or gender. But more importantly, I am interested in the relationship between the 88% of Americans who claim they would vote for a female president and the 66% of Americans who claim they would never vote for a Muslim president. These statistics are a sign of how ingrained structural sexism is within our society, as many people genuinely believe they would support a female candidate, while fearing the election of a Muslim candidate for the very same reasons.
I believe there are some major similarities in the reasons people would not vote for a Muslim candidate and the reasons people would actually not vote for a woman candidate, despite what claims have been made. The first question that begs to be asked is 'why would you not vote for a Muslim?' Surely, the simply answer is September 11th. The President has been quite successful reminding the American public that another act of terrorism is eminent and we should live in a constant state of suspicion. Recall that by the 5th anniversary of September 11th, the President was still referring to our 'enemy' as having 'a perverted view of Islam', as 'evil and [who] kill without mercy'.
This fear of an enemy does not go without affect. Even if most Americans attempted to make a distinction between those with a 'perverted view of Islam' and those with a peaceful view of Islam, it would be nearly impossible under a paradigm of such fear. Fear of an enemy must be rampant in our society. If it wasn't, why was national security the most important issue in the 2004 presidential elections? Why wouldn't the constant actions of the Bush Administration to increase the powers of the CIA (such as yesterday's veto of a bill that would have prohibited waterboarding) receive more attention? Why are we still in Iraq (or why did we go in the first place)? Needless to say, fear of an enemy is at the center of president-day American politics.
I intentionally use the phrase 'fear of an enemy' rather than 'fear of the enemy' because the enemy does not have a specific identity. What we know about our other is vague. He (we know it is a he, although more on this in a minute) is evil, he has a perverted view of Islam, he kills without mercy. He resides in the Middle East, his system of values are murky at best, but more likely just plain wrong. More generally, but more accurately, we know the enemy is completely different than us. His value system is the antithesis of our western, civilized way of life. Thus, it makes sense that, in a society where Muslims are seen as the antithesis of the American way of life, a vast majority of Americans would not even consider one as a political candidate, as it would compromise our system of values.
Similarly, many feel that electing a female president would also compromise our system of values. The values of consumerism and consumption are rooted in masculinity, and our public sphere (politics, culture, business) is given far more value than our private sphere (family, children, health). A perfect example is that men's work is higher paying than women's work. Citizens are controlled and forced into obeying laws through physical power, and our understanding of security is through restraint. High schools and colleges respond to a string of shootings with increased police, by installing security cameras and locking doors. Our federal government responds to terrorism with war and increased power to interrogate. We, as a society, respond to violence with more violence. We attempt to achieve peace by enforcing submission to the rules and ignoring the reasons why people want to lash out.
All that to say, our society is structured on masculine values. Voting for a woman candidate could (at least in the minds of many people) compromise these values in the same way as voting for a Muslim. Both are easily conflated as being anti-American. While it may not be stated quite so bluntly in the case of women, this is why so many people are so staunchly opposed to the Clinton campaign, or at the very least, far more sensitive to the things she says and does.
Our identities are structured not only off of this association with masculine values, but also in relation to our mythical other. If the other, our enemy, is staunchly different than us, and we are masculine, by default they must be feminine. Look at the way we emasculate the other in war with conversations about turning the Middle East into a parking lot, dominating it with 'Shock and Awe' tactics, freeing their women from the burka (because their men aren't good enough protectors to ensure the freedom of their own women). The gender of this mythical other is vague and shifting, as is their sexuality.
Thus when Americans claim that their system of values will be eroded by voting for a Muslim, they are really stating that the system of values will be eroded by moving away from a masculine public sphere. But many do not make this immediate association. Instead, they wholeheartedly believe that they would vote for a woman, just so long as she can uphold a masculine sphere without compromising her femininity. Unfortunately, structural sexism is difficult to uncover through statistics.
Kristof's piece in the Times today referenced a gallop poll that claims "94 percent of Americans said they would vote for a black candidate for president and 88 percent for a woman", whereas a previous poll from a prior period professes that only 34 percent of people would vote for a Muslim. First off, I do not believe any statistical analysis that makes claims about the status of race or gender. But more importantly, I am interested in the relationship between the 88% of Americans who claim they would vote for a female president and the 66% of Americans who claim they would never vote for a Muslim president. These statistics are a sign of how ingrained structural sexism is within our society, as many people genuinely believe they would support a female candidate, while fearing the election of a Muslim candidate for the very same reasons.
I believe there are some major similarities in the reasons people would not vote for a Muslim candidate and the reasons people would actually not vote for a woman candidate, despite what claims have been made. The first question that begs to be asked is 'why would you not vote for a Muslim?' Surely, the simply answer is September 11th. The President has been quite successful reminding the American public that another act of terrorism is eminent and we should live in a constant state of suspicion. Recall that by the 5th anniversary of September 11th, the President was still referring to our 'enemy' as having 'a perverted view of Islam', as 'evil and [who] kill without mercy'.
This fear of an enemy does not go without affect. Even if most Americans attempted to make a distinction between those with a 'perverted view of Islam' and those with a peaceful view of Islam, it would be nearly impossible under a paradigm of such fear. Fear of an enemy must be rampant in our society. If it wasn't, why was national security the most important issue in the 2004 presidential elections? Why wouldn't the constant actions of the Bush Administration to increase the powers of the CIA (such as yesterday's veto of a bill that would have prohibited waterboarding) receive more attention? Why are we still in Iraq (or why did we go in the first place)? Needless to say, fear of an enemy is at the center of president-day American politics.
I intentionally use the phrase 'fear of an enemy' rather than 'fear of the enemy' because the enemy does not have a specific identity. What we know about our other is vague. He (we know it is a he, although more on this in a minute) is evil, he has a perverted view of Islam, he kills without mercy. He resides in the Middle East, his system of values are murky at best, but more likely just plain wrong. More generally, but more accurately, we know the enemy is completely different than us. His value system is the antithesis of our western, civilized way of life. Thus, it makes sense that, in a society where Muslims are seen as the antithesis of the American way of life, a vast majority of Americans would not even consider one as a political candidate, as it would compromise our system of values.
Similarly, many feel that electing a female president would also compromise our system of values. The values of consumerism and consumption are rooted in masculinity, and our public sphere (politics, culture, business) is given far more value than our private sphere (family, children, health). A perfect example is that men's work is higher paying than women's work. Citizens are controlled and forced into obeying laws through physical power, and our understanding of security is through restraint. High schools and colleges respond to a string of shootings with increased police, by installing security cameras and locking doors. Our federal government responds to terrorism with war and increased power to interrogate. We, as a society, respond to violence with more violence. We attempt to achieve peace by enforcing submission to the rules and ignoring the reasons why people want to lash out.
All that to say, our society is structured on masculine values. Voting for a woman candidate could (at least in the minds of many people) compromise these values in the same way as voting for a Muslim. Both are easily conflated as being anti-American. While it may not be stated quite so bluntly in the case of women, this is why so many people are so staunchly opposed to the Clinton campaign, or at the very least, far more sensitive to the things she says and does.
Our identities are structured not only off of this association with masculine values, but also in relation to our mythical other. If the other, our enemy, is staunchly different than us, and we are masculine, by default they must be feminine. Look at the way we emasculate the other in war with conversations about turning the Middle East into a parking lot, dominating it with 'Shock and Awe' tactics, freeing their women from the burka (because their men aren't good enough protectors to ensure the freedom of their own women). The gender of this mythical other is vague and shifting, as is their sexuality.
Thus when Americans claim that their system of values will be eroded by voting for a Muslim, they are really stating that the system of values will be eroded by moving away from a masculine public sphere. But many do not make this immediate association. Instead, they wholeheartedly believe that they would vote for a woman, just so long as she can uphold a masculine sphere without compromising her femininity. Unfortunately, structural sexism is difficult to uncover through statistics.
posted by peuryan at 3:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home