The Truth about Marriage

Once again, an issue of power/oppression is being scrutinized within the framework of human rights and functionalist social theory. The Supreme Court hearings this week are nothing more than an opportunity to rehash ideas and arguments that everyone is familiar with, but no one seriously questions. The conception of marriage exhibited in these discussions reflects both the Ideology of Progress and a latent neoliberalism, yet holds no weight against historical and anthropological evidence. I think it is important to examine some of these popular myths about marriage in an effort to understand the real history of marriage and its ideological construction in the modern era.

Throughout all of human history, marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman.
There has been tremendous variation throughout time and across cultures in how marriage is defined. There is no single definition of marriage that has been universally accepted. In fact, polygamy has been a very prevalent form of marriage for most of human history, even if it has been declining recently. (Thus, countering the “slippery slope to polygamy” argument.)

The function of marriage is to regulate procreation
Like the forms that marriages take, their functions are similarly diverse. However, if one really wishes to generalize, for most of human history marriage has most often served an economic purpose (which is why, in anthropology courses, the two topics are often taught in tandem). But, economics is never really separate from other aspects of the social structure, and so it would be a bit narrow to say that marriage is purely “economic” in the modern understanding of the word. However, marriage has commonly functioned as a type or realm of exchange (the basis of economic activity). These exchanges facilitate the integration of different kin groups and determine responsibility for the care and provisioning of certain segments of society. This does, of course, include children, but may also include elders and other people who cannot participate fully in the social division of labor. Significantly, the social division of labor is almost always gendered, and consequently in many instances, a woman is treated as a form of property, which another adult male can own for the purposes of extracting labor. Hence, if there is any such thing as “traditional marriage” then traditional marriage has served the primary function of exploiting and oppressing women.

But let’s get back to those children. In more communal societies, marriage may have determined which group of people was responsible for provisioning a particular child, and that group might have included kin and non-kin. However, in atomistic capitalist societies, the nuclear family has become the primary (“sacred”) means of providing for children. This concentrates and confines all of the responsibilities, risks, and expenses involved in childcare to one or two people – and it is guaranteed that one of those people (the woman) is already saddled with a larger share of the division of labor in combination with fewer resources. If the one or two people who have been charged with caring for the child do not have enough money or sufficient time or cannot provide a safe environment for their child, then that child is SOL. That is why so many children die of malnutrition, despite the abundance of available food. That is why so many children grow up without supervision, and why so many children are exposed to violence, filth, and disease on a daily basis. Under capitalism, there is no communal responsibility for the raising of children, and therefore no safety net when the parent(s) cannot handle it on their own. In my opinion, that is the most dysfunctional and malevolent social arrangement of all!

We do not know enough about the consequences for children
I refer once again to my point that the forms that marriages and families take have been and are incredibly diverse. Evidence has been accumulating for all of history that marriage in and of itself does not determine the fate of a society or the character of its children. What matters is the social structure as a whole, and structures that are severely unequal and exploitative are the most unstable. If we are concerned for our children, then we should get rid of capitalism.

Children need a mom and a dad
False. See my argument above. In addition, this idea is based on the assumption that gender is a natural trait. To the contrary, gender, and even sex (the anatomical distinction between male and female), are social constructions. Hormones and other biological factors vary continuously, not discretely, and there is a considerable overlap between male and female. Furthermore, characterizations of gender differences have varied throughout history and across cultures, and there is no evidence of any link to biological factors. What it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman today are very culturally specific. It is absurd to say that there is any innate, biological need for a child to be exposed to particular cultural constructs.

Marriage is sacred
If the historical functions of marriage, particularly in the West, have most often been concerned with the gendered division of labor, exploitation, and subordination of women, and furthermore, if the nuclear family in the context of a capitalist society cannot adequately serve the needs of most children.... why do we even need marriage? Are there not better ways to nurture loving human relationships and to provide for vulnerable segments of society? I’m not so sure that a victory for marriage equality will be a real step toward meaningful social change.

Progress or Dystopia, Part 4

Equal Rights

The last main claim in support of progress is that modern society is so much more tolerant and progressive than “traditional” societies. We ended slavery. We ended Jim Crow. Women entered the workforce. Gays can serve in the military. Let’s pat ourselves on the back.

I addressed some of these claims in my post about issue based change versus systemic change. If you think the U.S. has eradicated its racial caste system, read Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow. If you think modern, industrial societies have successfully dealt with racism, read any comment thread that exists anywhere on the internet. If you think women are liberated, look at statistics concerning rape and eating disorders, examine the gendered division of labor in any industry or organization, and look at the images of women promulgated by the entertainment industry. If you think America (or any other industrial society) is a melting pot, pay attention to discussions (and I use that word lightly) about immigration. You do not need to look hard to find hateful language directed at any particular group of people. In fact, the internet has made it easier to disseminate this vitriol.

The fact of the matter is, all of the social/economic/political processes that demand structured inequality remain in place. It is important to note that the ideological basis of these divisions and prejudices are completely modern:

-The concept of “race” developed in the Enlightenment era as a means of creating divisions among the population of people oppressed by the nascent capitalist system. It has continued to function as a mechanism for segregating interests and obtaining free or cheap labor.

-The relegation of women’s work to the domestic sphere was a product of the new division of labor that emerged when production moved outside of the home and into the factory. Furthermore, the absorption of women into the post-WW2 labor force is a reflection of the need for cheap labor, an expanded labor force and a new market for manufactured goods (dishwashers! washing machines! mass-produced clothes!). The combination of these two forces (domestic responsibility and careers outside the home) has only served to double the burden that women must bear. Now women are expected to do it all.

-Michel Foucault argued that the idea of “homosexuality” (even more, sexuality in general) did not arise until the late 19th century, and has served to make sexual activities definitive of a person’s entire identity and consciousness as a human being. Some scholars have provided evidence that the creation of “homosexuality” as a pathological mode of being was born out of eugenicist fears that white reproduction was not occurring at a healthy rate. It should never be forgotten that “homosexuality” was a scientific/medical concept before it entered popular discourse.

-It can be just as convincingly argued that fears/abhorrence of immigrants, terrorists, Muslims, and the like, are byproducts of colonialism and nation-building, especially the creation of immutable state boundaries, the ideals of ethnically “pure” states, and all the various forms of neocolonialism that produce backlash against the modern world order.

The prejudices that modernity, in all of its enlightened glory, is supposedly ameliorating are the very prejudices created by modernity.

Divide and Conquer: Part 2

I have discussed the nefarious impacts of an ever-proliferating web of non-profits and government agencies, which diffuses the focus and energies of well-intentioned people in a multitude of different directions, preventing the emergence of a unified radical movement.

Then there is the more obvious divide and conquer strategy, of which there tends to be greater awareness. Historians and anthropologists have noted that the origin of the concept of “race” coincided with an attempt (successful) to create a wall of separation between poor whites and black slaves, and thus prevent them from uniting to overthrow the system that oppressed them both. Throughout American history, working-class whites have been told that they are competing with blacks (and immigrants) for jobs, all the while opportunist politicians cultivate an insidious racism which may be used to garner their support for the ruling elite. In the words of Bob Dylan (excerpts from Only A Pawn in Their Game):

A South politician preaches to the poor white man
"You got more than blacks, don't complain
You're better than them, you been born with white skin" they explain

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight

The strategic cultivation of poor, white racism is more well-known. But I often wonder if the same tactic is used to create divisions along lines of gender, sexual orientation, and class (the latter within the same race).

For example, there has been some attention given to the fact that macho-ism/sexism is more exaggerated within white, blue-collar and African American communities (this works internationally as well, but I will stick to the American context for now). There are many scholarly and popular examples. Just recently, for example, the CNN news anchor Don Lemon, upon publicizing his sexual orientation, discussed the extreme difficulties (greater than in American society at large) of being gay in the African American community. And there has been no end to the public discussion about sexism in hop-hop music and culture. Likewise, the image of white, blue-collar life is a paragon of gender stereotypes: blue-collar men fix cars, go hunting, ride trucks and motor cycles, get wasted at the bar and get in fights. Music associated with working-class culture (most notably country and hard rock) is rife with sexism. Lyrics this time from Brad Paisley (country singer):

When you see a deer, you see Bambi
And I see antlers up on the wall
When you see a lake you think picnics
And I see a large mouth up under that log

When you see a priceless friend's painting
I see a drunk naked girl
When you think that riding a wild bull sounds crazy
And I'd like to give it a whirl

These days there's dudes gettin' facials
Manicured, waxed and botoxed
With deep spray-on tans and creamy lotiony hands
You can't grip a tackle box

Yeah, with all of these men linin' up to get neutered
It's hip now to be feminized
But I don't highlight my hair, I've still got a pair
Yeah honey, I'm still a guy

Oh, my eyebrows ain't plucked, there's a gun in my truck
Oh thank God, I'm still a guy

Effeminate men (in the above song, the "dudes getting facials"), in contrast, are associated with elitism and upper-class lifestyles.

Moreover, many people have noted, with great concern, that successful blacks tend to disassociate themselves from poor black communities. They move out into the suburbs and adopt “white” cultural preferences. Black students who do “too well” in school may be criticized for “acting white.”

All of these public images, stories, and stereotypes serve to reinforce boundaries among various groups of people who would be better served by creating a unified front to combat an unjust system. I cannot help but wonder, based on the divide and conquer strategies that have been used to put a wedge been poor white and black, if the public images of these divisions (sexist/homophobic lower-class white and blacks, middle-class versus poor blacks, etc.) spring purely from the social realities.... or if the social realties themselves were partially constructed (and are partially reconstructed) by means of the proliferation of these images and stories in the public sphere.

Is there some iniquitous force lurking in the background, purposefully trying to create and exacerbate all numbers of divisions among the large population of oppressed human beings?

I can speculate, though I have yet to come across any real research. (If anyone knows of any, please comment!) It is a bit curious that, since the time of slavery, white men publicly called into question the masculinity of black males (for instance, calling them “boy”), seemingly trying to provoke them in some way, while scientists simultaneously disseminated their conclusions that black men are inherently hyper-masculine and aggressive. Then, there is the widely-circulated idea that one must be a bread-winner in order to be a “real man,” thus inciting men who are not able to adequately provide for their families to assert their manhood in other ways. Moreover, one must consider who really gets to decide what types of hip hop/hard rock/country music is available in music stores (real or electronic), heard on the radio, featured in movies, and thus ultimately, what artists and songs become representative of these genres? Finally, one must also observe that African Americans for the most part are not allowed to be successful unless they disassociate themselves to a certain degree from black culture and the life of the ghetto. Many students find that they have to “act white” in order to avoid being stigmatized by their teachers, if they want to do well in school. Thus, I can see some evidence that these divisions may be fostered by dominant groups.

 If this is the case, then it follows logically that it would be a divide and conquer strategy.

What Does It Mean To Be "Too Gay"?

Not too infrequently I hear someone complain that another person is “too gay.” They have no problem with gay people, they are sure to emphasize, but they get annoyed by those that are “too flamboyant” and act like stereotypes of a gay person. Just because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you have to act like that, they argue. On the surface, these arguments may sound somewhat reasonable.

But what they are really saying is that, while they don’t mind what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, they do have a problem with people transgressing gender norms. For example, I have heard people say that they prefer when gay people act “normal.” They cloak this preference in altruism by insisting that they just want gay people to seem like any other average person, rather than stand out as social deviants. But this line of thought rests on the assumption that “normality” should be measured by adherence to gender stereotypes.

I think that, deep down, what really bothers people about “flamboyant” gays, is that they turn our binary system of gender on its head. People are okay with men sleeping with other men (although being gay is about much more than sex), but they are not comfortable with men talking, walking, sitting, laughing, dressing, or expressing themselves in ways deemed “feminine.” The real telling thing is, people don’t seem to get quite as agitated by lesbians acting "too lesbian" or masculine. They don’t seem to have the same concern about lesbians appearing “normal.” And this is the sign that gender roles are at stake. For, it is always perceived as more shocking and abhorrent when members of a dominant group act like subordinates, than when the oppressed mimic their oppressors. The latter is seen as the natural aspiration of an underclass. Which is why there is greater stigma on men taking female roles than the reverse.

It is just as silly to dislike someone because they are “flamboyant” as it is to dislike a person because they are gay. Why not make judgments based on common interests and views, sense of humor, and character?

The Gay Gene

This Sunday on Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked U.S. Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty whether or not he thought it was a choice to be gay. Pawlenty essentially copped out by saying that he would leave it up to scientists to determine the answer to that question (even while asserting his committment to "traditional marriage").

This demonstrates, once again, the unassailable strength of scientific authority. It is simply unparalleled in the contemporary world. Even with the most contentious issues - evolution and global warming - debate centers largely around the question of whether the science is "good" or "unbiased." If anything is up for debate, it is only because human bias can occasionally taint the purity of scientic truth, not because the authority of scientists themselves should be subject to the same type of scrutiny that we apply to other sources of authority. In fact, those on the "pro-" side of the evolution and global warming debates often assert boldly that you can't question science! Science is science! Furthermore, it is very clear that, even while religious authority is rejected or critiqued/satarized by many, including the religious themselves, and those with political, economic, and social power are trusted even less, not even religious fundamentalists dare question the basis of scientific authority. Pawlenty's invocation of science as a "safe" response to Gregory's question demonstrates this quite well.

My series of posts on evolution focused on debunking this faith in science. However, Pawlenty's claim that only science can establish the true nature of homosexuality brings up another interesting domain in which to examine science as a social activity - deriving from and shaping the society in which it is embedded.

The terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" did not exist until the end of the 19th century and were not in widespread use until the 20th. In their earliest incarnation they were medical terms, and did enter the popular lexicon until later. Herein lies one basic flaw in Palwenty's reasoning: we are not waiting for science to determine the nature of homosexualtiy; science created the concept of homosexuality and has been defining it (and redefining it) since its inception.

In this light, it is interesting to see how the terms of the debate have shifted. At the beginning, homosexuality was defined within the medical establishment as a biological, pathological condition - like a disorder or a disease. The dissidents argued, in contrast, that it was a lifestyle choice and not a pathology. It was not until religious institutions and the concept of "sin" became involved that the positions completely reversed themselves. Now religious fundamentalists argue that sexual orientation is a choice, while "born this way" has become a rallying cry of the gay rights movement.

By allowing the "opposition" to decide the terms of the debate (essentially defining their positions in reaction to the heterosexist establishment, rather than on their own terms), these particular gay rights activists (who are certainly not representative of the entire movement) are placing themselves in a vulnerable and disadvantageous position. For example, there is the grave risk that if scientists were somehow to find a "gay gene," this would once again turn homosexuality into a form of deviance, on the order, say, of autism. Who will be able to argue against those that say being gay is "unnatural," when they are armed with the evidence that homosexuality is caused by a genetic mutation?

Scientists may find a "gay gene," but only because they can always find what they want to find. Am I arguing, then, that homosexuality has no biological basis? Is that why the concept did not emerge until the last century? Absolutely not. Rather, the concept itself is only one particular way of understanding, organizing and representing a far more complex reality (a reality that cannot be boiled down to the criteria used to define the differences and between homo- and heterosexualtiy).

First, sexual attraction is not as much a black-and-white matter as the homo-hetero duality suggests. No one is attracted to all men. No one is attracted to all women. We are attracted to particular people - maybe all of the same gender, maybe a mixture. Take two "straight" women, and one could be attracted only to very effeminate, androgynous men, while the other prefers the burly, masculine type. Furthermore, if you asked either of these women to rank order everyone that exists (hypothetically, of course) in terms of their willingness to be intimate with them, at some point women would start appearing ahead of some men.  (Who wouldn't prefer to snuggle with Natalie Portman over Ted Kaczynski?)  What does it mean, then, to say that you are "attracted to men"?? The variations of attraction are perhaps infinite. The basis of attraction may be biological (though it is surely social as well), but it is not a discrete, binary trait that can be controlled by a single or isolated set of genes.

Second, the ways in which people relate to one another are incredibly diverse. There is more than one kind of intimate relationship, and intimacy is more than just physical attraction or sexual impulses. Many gay people will contend that being gay is not just about who they are sleeping with: it is about emotional and intellectual connections; it is also an identity and a culture. Thus, the notion of "sexual orientation," as it encounters the richness and complexity of the human experience of intimacy, reduces it to its sexual dimension. It creates the categories of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" in order to induce homogeneity within the boundaries of each. (And to completely neglect those who cross or straddle boundaries - bisexuals, I'm looking at you!)

It is clear, then, that scientists, in pursuit of a "gay gene" (and proposing ridiculous evolutionary justifcations of homosexuality - gay people exist only to help care for their sibling's kids), are actively working to uphold a heterosexist social order. The entire experience of human intimacy is reduced to a simple binary, wherein one end is marked as a "default." Gay people then continue to be defined as a coherent, monolithic group; according to their difference from the norm; according to their sexual behavior; as a fundamentally different "type" or "essence" from the "straight" person. And then they continue to be treated differently.

"Leaving it up to science" means ceding more power to the white, middle-class, straight, male establishment. Which probably is precisely what Pawlenty would want.