feminist and patriarchal identity

Jump to Comments

An esteemed colleague of mine recently passed me a 1997 Cindy Griffen/Foss Sisters‘ journal article discussing feminist reconstruction with an emphasis on reforming rhetoric (I have some catching up to do in this particular area of study).  While I respect the emphasis of the article** (establishing a different perspective from Condit’s ‘Gender Diversity Perspective’), I found a number of enlightening ideas presented projecting my mind on somewhat different tangents.

     I find it curious that, until I had read this article, I had not come across a succinct depiction of rhetorical personality characteristics embodied in the patriarchal and feminist power structures.  I’m not sure if it’s a condemming statement on my education and exposure to society.  I’m sure the ideas are prevelant and clearly communicated (or I at least hope they are) in Women’s Studies courses throughout the country.  Or, it could have nothing to do with me and the concepts have been previously mired in long winded and over-analyzed evaluations.  I lean towards the author’s committement to clear and concise diction. Nonetheless, I feel it appropriate to continue a clear and concise discussion on the matter.  One note, in the realm of communication rhetoric, many think we are rhetors with various size audiences.  Whether it be your spouse, your family, work, etc.  In the world of rhetoric, we all communicate with the intent on influencing our audience and become rhetors in the process.

• The patriarchal power structure – historically favoring white, heterosexual males, the idea of the patriarch permeates nearly every aspect of our culture.  Don’t feel bad Americans, it’s all over the place (here, and also here).  I’m not going to try to distill this whole concept in one blog post, but do want to note that the rhetor’s leveraging this power structure (according to Foss et al.) embody domination, competition, hierarchy, elitism, and gauging a person’s worth based on possessions and position.
• The feminist or matriarchal power structure – Foss et al. define this power structure with personality characteristics of intimacy, mutuality, and camaraderie. 

  Alright, these are definitions to which I can relate.  Especially with Foss and companys’  example that complicated linguistics and a lack of respect for the concept of brevity embody the notions of the patriarchal power structure.  When I listen to or read something that seems deliberately complex, I immediately think it to be a minor flaw in the author.  Foss et al. suggest the phenomena could be a form of domination over the audience.  They state that a rhetor (i.e. the author or speaker) could be use verbal window dressing to make the audience feel inferior to the rhetor, employing the logos rhetorical strategy.

     When the two concepts are positioned next to each other, as they are in this article, I am compelled to call feminism a power structure.  It’s a power structure struggling for power and influence against the patriarchal.  Nonetheless, is it not a power structure.  As with its patriarchal counterpart, it is looking to gain and maintain influence and control.  I don’t think any of us can say that feminist ideology would fare any better than the patriarch, but we don’t know because theses ideals and the demographic that currently embodies these ideals have been oppressed for most of modern history.        

     What would happen if we divorced the terms from the power structures they allegedly embody?  After all, characteristics of domination and competition as well as mutuality are exhibited by both genders, and seemingly all sexual orientations.  So, is it accurate to align these mindsets/power structures with gender?  Can we not lean on the notion that correlation does not imply causality?  Just because we see so many males adopting aggressive mindsets and females adopting more passive roles, mean that they are tied to gender?  I know this opens a can of worms around different genetic pre-dispositions between male and females that I am not well versed in.  That being said, would not the simple observation that there are some females in the world that exhibit patriarchal personality characteristics and some male exhibiting matriarchal characteristics demonstrate that these power structures can, and should depending the situation, be adopted by either gender?  What does it mean when some of my lesbian friends are the most fiercest competitors and my a few of my gay friends are extremely docile?  Like so many other things in our culture, we might be better off thinking less in absolutes and more on a spectrum:

 feminism/matriachy <——  here we, as a culture, should reside?  ——> patriarchy

 Now, I am not advocating feminist theory should slack (after all, I’m on the Internet and everyone is reading this no? ha!) or that their demands and theories should be any less than demanding.  We live in a patriarchal-based culture built on other cultures rooted in notions of patriarchy.  There has been little acceptance of the other side of spectrum that we, culturally and individually, would benefit from.  If a culture was able to supplant the patriarchy for feminist/matriarchy characteristics, would this culture experience gender equality?  We must collectively pull our culture to the middle where we, regardless of gender, can borrow characteristics of feminism and patriarchy when the situation dictates.  Removing the ownership of these power structures with their respective genders would allow us to collectively live in the middle. Here, we would be able to keep both mindsets in check and explore other competing power structures the feminism vs. patriarchy struggle has not allowed to surface.

 

**AUTHOR: Sonja K. Foss, Cindy L. Griffin and Karen A. Foss
TITLE:  Transforming Rhetoric Through Feminist Reconstruction: A Response to the Gender Diversity Perspective
SOURCE: Women’s Studies in Communication 20 117-35 Fall ‘97

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tags: communications, feminism, gender, patriarchy