Socialist Feminism and Bifurcation - Personal Statement Example

 My theory of "socialist feminism" and "bifurcation” Why A Socialist Feminism theory? I felt that Marxism addresses particularities of every day /every night experiences in terms of social and economic processes. Though Marxist refuses the feminist views,. I still applied the Marxist standpoint in my women standpoint sociology (Adams and Sydie 216). Where Marx argued that the standpoint of labor allows an analyst to understand and reveal the contradictory forms of class relations in a capitalist society, so adopting the standpoint of women reveals how gender relations are structured and are the means by which dominant members can subordinate others(Adams and Sydie 220). Here I would make it absolutely clear that when I said sociology for women that did not mean a sociology exclusively for women rather “ it means a sociology that addresses society and social relations from the stand point of women situated outside rather than within the relation of ruling” (Smith, “The Everyday” 46). Let us talk in a little detail about genesis of my theory. During the experiences of my own life and work, I had noticed that male of the society has defined roles and status of a woman in it. The feelings and experiences of woman do not get priority even in the conceptualization of her own ideology. Women are viewed more as an object rather than human, they are just the ‘other’ and are forced to see the world through male point of view. So I say. "There is a disjuncture between how women experience the world and the concepts and theoretical schemes by which society's self-consciousness is inscribed" (Smith, “The Conceptual” 13). The women see and experience the world in which they live by not their own experiences but as in perspectives of the rule framed and theories propounded by men for them. As a result women are kept in confusion and remain deprived of self discovery. I observed that "Our images of how we should look, our homes, our lives, are given shape by the work of people in academia, in television, radio, newspapers, and other organizations forming the 'ideological apparatuses' of the society'" (Smith, “The Everyday” 17). These relations of ruling are made up of texts and ideology. The texts are what presented to us, woman, by government organization, other institutions, popular media who tell us how we should look, manage home and such everyday matters, we shape our lives around the ideology presented in these various texts. The ideologies created by these ideological apparatuses and real experiences do not correlate and thus create chaos in women/s life. The ideology is created by the male in such a way that complete domination and authority remain with them. Marxism also states that women‘s subordination is because they are not productive members of society. As a result they do not control property but are property in them selves. Entry of women in paid labor would stop their subordination, suggests marxist (Adams and Sydie 208). Well! to that I can say that my own daily routine as a worker, wife and mother given me clue to put my thoughts as that women, although excluded almost entirely from positions of authority, had one trusted source of knowing from which to reply--our everyday experience (Campbell 7). So I declare that it is woman’s work that make foundation for man’s ruling. Women give shape to man’s concepts at home or in paid labor. They work at home to maintain healthy bodies and mind and at work place the abstract concepts are given concrete form of reports , memos , strategic plans by women who ensure space, time and resources for these(Adams and Sydie 216). Are these not productive work? These give men ablity and freedom to have abstract authority because we, women, do the groundwork for them. It is time to realize that Intellectual work was done in the mind, as if bodies didn't exist?. There seemed to be a permanent conflict in seeing and valuing the two existing separately (Campbell 7). Moreover, returning back to Marxist productive question above, I have to make it clear that woman are there in the large number in corporate paid labor force, yet it has not brought gender equality as Marxism predicted. My relations of ruling are government and other institutions that rule, manage and administer society. These are all work of men supported by invisible contribution of women, as I have already elaborated above. (Adams and Sydie 215). So far Sociology has been a compilation of thoughts of privileged makers, presented as reality. It had not used experiences as source of reliable information. "Social science has become objective not in order to seek the truth, but rather to remove the subjects from the knowledge produced" (Smith, “The Conceptual” 32). I do not consider sociology as universal rather it is centered on male beliefs and norms. Because women are excluded from conceptualization, it can not be taken to be universal. Please do not misunderstand me as my sociology from standpoint of women does not mean to transfer from one conceptual mode to the other. Neither has it meant renunciation of conceptual, scientific to exclusively female view. It simply is to be based on the actual experiences of women (Adams and Sydie 214). Bifurcation: I strongly noticed throughout my life that conditions apply to the forms of our consciousness or knowledge rather than permission of unhindered, own thinking. The knowledge can be expressed only within the boundaries of organizations or discourses already created by the dominant class, the males,” Suspending the presence of particular subjects is the accomplishment of organized practices in and of the everyday world. The objectification of knowledge is a general feature of contemporary relations of ruling" (Smith, “The Conceptual”67). The woman is confined to a particular mould of behavior, thinking and action in the already conceptualized world. The man formulates masculine as well as neutral concepts. In the broader concept formed by men, women have but a local position and no say in the designing of the concepts which concern them. Here the knower (subject) is separated from known and that made me comment, "the gendered organization of subjectivity dichotomizes the two worlds, estranges them, and silences the locally situated consciousness by silencing women" (Smith, “The conceptual” 19).. I show my agreement with De Beauvoir, who greatly influenced me, emphasized that man is both masculine and neutral and is positive while women is negative. It is common for a man to say : you think thus so because you are a woman”. The woman, at the most, can say, “I say so because it is true”. When the word human being is mentioned that refers to man. The response of a woman is either be a woman and restrict, limit or subordinate yourself or be masculine or neutered. (Smith, “The Everyday” 52-53). The Marx concept of alienation is applicable here also . Women prepare the foundation for the conceptualization, the very concepts that oppress them. The dichotomy of between two worlds is there again the women are managing the concrete particularities to fulfill the abstract authority of man. The locally situated consciousness of women can be suppressed but can not be cancelled it is necessary for conceptualization by government or other institutions (Smith, “The Conceptual”19 ). She looks after home, children, husband which are local attributes the man pays full attention to his abstracts authority just because his locals are taken care of. My concept of bifurcation of consciousness also originated from broader concept formulated by men where women have just this local position. The bifurcation simplified is the difference between the worlds created in theory and as lived actually. The bifurcated consciousness refers to two different ways of knowing, experiencing and acting “the one located in the body and the space it occupies and moves into, the other passing beyond it.” (Smith, “The Everyday” 82) separates the knower (Subject) from the known. Work cited Adams, B. N. and Rosalind N. Sydie. Contemporary Sociological Theory, Pine Forge Press, 2002 Smith , Dorothy E. The everyday world as problematic. Boston: Northeastern Univershy Press. 1987. Smith , Dorothy E . The conceptual practices of power. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990 Campbell, Marie. Dorothy Smith and knowing the world we live in, Journal of Sociology and Social welfare, 2003 . 1-14. 25 Feb 2009, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_1_30/ai_99018712/pg_7?tag=content;col1 Read More