The Theoretical Beliefs and Convictions - Essay Example

PRAGMATIC FEMINISM AND MARXISM: ERIN BROCKOVICH By 28 April Pragmatic Feminism and Marxism: Erin Brockovich Judith Allison and Ralph Montgomery meet in a small café and sit down for a short discussion of their theoretical beliefs and convictions. Yesterday, they watched Steven Soderberg’s Erin Brockovich – the movie which poses more questions than it can answer and the movie which presents a multifaceted picture of a woman’s life reality. Judith is the support of pragmatic feminism, and Ralph is confident that the reality can only be explain in Marxian terms. Their dialogue will hardly resolve the theoretical conflict but will, most probably, reveal the hidden facets of the movie which the audience liked so much. Ralph: You know, Judith, that I read a lot about Marxism but that I am the supporter of Marxian theories does not necessarily mean that I do not know anything about feminism. After watching Erin Brockovich yesterday, I finally realized why so many women like this movie. Erin, as far as I can see, is the bright representation of the modern feminist woman. She does not have a husband and thus carries the burden of both female and male responsibilities on her shoulder. She is so convincing in her “maleness” that I cannot escape an impression that she tries to resemble a man in a skirt, who has power and strength and can achieve unbelievable professional highs. Judith: Ralph, I may sound overtly critical, but I feel that you have a somewhat limited view of feminism and the figure of Erin in the movie we watched yesterday. Some of your assumptions deserve attention but most of what you said is the reflection of the mistake which many modern and postmodern feminist make. This mistake is called “stereotyping”: you label Erin like only people who do not see the profound meaning of feminism would do. You cannot see the hidden feminist implications of the movie. Ralph: Are you trying to say that Erin Brockovich is not a feminist? I will not agree with you, if you decide to say that Erin is not the brightest representative of the postmodern feminist culture. Judith: No, I did not say that the movie lacks the feminist coloring. What I am trying to say is that you make a mistake when you use the ‘term’ feminism to justify your stereotyping of Erin. However, I must recognize that in reality, the character of Erin and the movie Erin Brockovich in general does not convey some feminist thoughts about the place of a woman in a postmodern society. I will say that Erin exemplifies pragmatic feminism – the trend that emerged in the latter half of the 20th century and which looks and feels much closer to the reality than traditional feminist thought. Ralph, you should know that “pragmatism is a process-oriented philosophy, valuing and thinking about how ideas arise from social interactions within society” (Brabeck 1993). At the same time, feminism is broadly defined as the women’s fight for equality of sexes (Beasley 1999). Although I do not fully agree with this definition and consider it too simplistic and even wrong, I view Erin Brockovich as a woman who uses her interactions within the society to prove her right for personal and professional self-realization. I was particularly fascinated by the scene where Erin got into a car accident and was denied compensation by court. Because the second driver was a man and, more importantly, because he was the one to cause the accident, Erin Brockovich resembles a chased animal in the shadowy woods of the society, which is characterized by male dominance, discrimination against women based on their gender, and a strict hierarchy of sexes. She is pragmatic because she grounds her observations on her experiences and immediately embeds these into her contacts with the outer world. She is feminist because she tries to prove (and she succeeds in doing so) that her gender has nothing to do with her professional qualities and her potential to become an excellent employee. However, you will hardly call Erin a man-hater, although with three children on her shoulders she has the full right to hate the male half of the society. Actually, I think that you, as the supporter of Marxism, can also view Erin as the participant of the never ending class struggle, am I correct? Ralph: Yes, you are correct. To some extent, the character of Erin in the movie exemplifies the continuous historical struggle between different classes in a capitalist society. I would not mind to assume that Erin is the representation of class consciousness, which is an essential component of the process through which every class becomes a class for itself (Slaughter 1975). Moreover, I would even dare to say that not Erin as a personality but her relations with the chemical plant in Hinkley reveal the hidden complexities of the class struggle. Erin’s relations with the plant show that society does not pursue any definite plan of production and development but is driven by its desire to create surplus value (Slaughter 1975). For the sake of greater surplus, capitalist manufacturers are willing to sacrifice health and lives of thousands Hinkley people. The chemical plant in Hinkley reduces human labor to a form of commodity which result in workers’ exploitation: they do not benefit from their participation in the manufacturing process but suffer the consequences of continuous discrimination and oppression of the capital (Slaughter 1975). Judith (interrupts): But don’t you think that as Erin is being pressured by the power of the capitalist relations, in the same way, she faces the opposition from other forces, which are also directly related to capitalism? For example, that she cannot find a decent job be considered as a result of multiple capitalist interrelationships and influences. Moreover, the gender opposition which Erin constantly experiences could also become the result of various capitalist forces which deny women the right for employment based on their gender. To be more specific, capitalist society may view a woman as incapable of producing the surplus value of which you speak. The capitalist production results in the development of new political and social mentality, which “commonly accepts and confirms women’s subordinate position in social political life, either explicitly or implicitly” (Beasley 1999). In the movie, Erin is bound to face both explicit and implicit forms of discrimination. Explicit are those which position her gender as the major problem of her life: the employers which refuse to give her a job do not conceal their prejudiced attitudes toward women. Implicit forms are more complicated but are no less comprehensible than the explicit ones: look at the court situation – the judge finds an excellent legal excuse to solve the case in favor of Erin’s opponent. Look at the initial reactions of Hinkley residents to Erin’s initiatives: they do not feel like a woman can move mountains and make the chemical plant pay for its illegal acts simply because she is a woman! Ralph: I cannot fully agree with you, Judith. I can assume that your feminist interpretations, to some extent, reflect the reality of class struggle and exploitation in society, but I believe that the major role of Erin in the movie is that of fighting against capitalist oppression and not against the chains of male dominance. Look at her: the way the plant treat Hinkley residents reflects the ideology of oppressive social relations, which result of the product’s domination over the manufacturer (Slaughter 1975). Executive management does not care for the fates of the plant workers who suffer adverse health effects simply because the plant does not comply even with the basic requirements toward environmental protection. As a result, these are Hinkley residents and plant employees who can and MUST deliver the philosophy of non-discrimination and non-exploitation to masses (Slaughter 1975). In the same way, Erin is often exploited too, for employers rarely account for her single marital status and do not let her balance her personal life with workplace obligations. Again, Erin is the one to give voice to these concerns and to try to resolve and eliminate them. In many aspects, Erin and her relations with the plant and Hinkley residents results in some form of pragmatic Marxism, because she seeks to apply her philosophy of life to real-life situations; and you, Judith, are correct when trying to link your feminist assumptions to pragmatism. Erin is the person who relies on her experiences and in her fight for gender equality she will again seek practical, not theoretical solutions. Judith: You know, Ralph, I must say that although feminism has its limitations, it often becomes an effective means to change and expand the meaning of conventional meanings. This is particularly the case of social meanings, which individuals operate on a daily basis. These often turn into stereotypes – we take them for granted and do not leave any room for objectivity. For example, feminists are often considered as a step away from the mainstream thinking and are associated with weirdness and queerness (Beasley 1999). That is why, and I cannot but agree to Carson, Dittmar and Welsch (1994) in that women who succeed to prove their viewpoints either by means of public performance or through cinematic expression, turn their triumph into a form of celebration. As a result, many movies which either describe women like Erin Brockovich or are created by women readily into a celebration of a woman’s exclusion from the patriarchal social discourse (Carson, Dittmar & Welsch 1994). Whether it is bad or good is difficult to define, but one of the beneficial features of Erin Brockovich is that Steven Soderberg does not turn his movie into such celebration. He succeeds to resolve the mystery of the single mother stereotype without excluding Erin from her life discourse. In simpler terms, she is lucky to preserve her successful relations with male colleagues, to find her love, to establish an effective contact with male victims of the chemical plant in Hinkley and, simultaneously, to reduce the scope of stereotyping, which single mothers often face in their life. Ralph: Judith, you are absolutely right. I have already said that in the context of Marxism, single women, like other members of the socially fair society, can successfully participate in the process of creating a product surplus and thus should be given the right to do it. I must note, however, that although employment helps Erin to resolve many of the internal stresses that necessarily arise in the relations between capitalist workers and manufacturers, many of these stresses remain unresolved. “The industrial workers – the proletariat – are forced to band together to resist the efforts of capitalists to over-work and underplay them, and out of these scattered economic struggles against individual capitalists arises a political struggle against the capitalist class” (Sowell 1985). However, what happens is the worker himself displays his willingness to over-work and underplay his employer? Erin is enthusiastic about the legal case she must resolve. This case will open the gateway to her successful career and professional growth. Again, here the principles of Marxism and Feminism closely intertwine: Erin is first of all, a woman; more importantly, she is a single mother, and for her to prove that she deserves to be kept her position is actually a matter of life vs. death. As a result, Erin seems to undermine the principles of Marxism which states that workers will always strive to avoid excessive workloads, which also cause continuous opposition between workers and owners. Judith: Yes, Ralph, it is true. That Erin is a single mother puts additional burden on her shoulders and makes it even more difficult for her to find decent employment. However, I must continue my thought regarding stereotyping. That the capitalist/ patriarchal society assigns single mothers negative social meanings is difficult to deny. More often than not, such societies stereotype women as “crack whores” and consider them as unable to support their lives (Damien 1999). Erin does not simply vote (implicitly!) for the equality of sexes, but she also votes for recognizing single mothers as full members of their society (Walsh 2000)! She successfully uses her position and her life to promote a positive image of woman, who is capable of making exemplary career and displaying spectacular professional performance results. That Erin Brockovich can be interpreted in terms of Marxism adds its value to the movie itself and to the messages it conveys to the audience. Ralph: Judith, I think that we will agree that Erin Brockovich was an excellent attempt to reconsider the current state of gender and economic/ social relations in postmodern society. Although we hold to different viewpoints, we both view Erin Brockovich as a successful example of professional, individual, and gender triumph. References Beasley, C 1999, What is feminism? An introduction to feminist theory, SAGE. Brabeck, M 1993, ‘Shared communities of interest: Feminism and pragmatism’, Hypatia, vol. 8, no 2, pp. 11-15. Carson, D, Dittmar, L & Welsch, JR 1994, Multiple voices in feminist film criticism, University of Minnesota. Damien, A 1999, ‘A path to depression: The stigmatization to poor single mother’, Contemporary Sociological Theory, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 49-56. Erin Brockovich 2000. Directed by Steven Soderberg. Universal Studios. Slaughter, C 1975, Marxism & class struggle, New Park Publications. Sowell, T 1985, Marxism: Philosophy and economics, Taylor & Francis. Walsh, D 2000, ‘Simplifying matters’, World Socialist Web Site. Accessed online, http://wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/erin-m21.shtml Read More