Bartky: On Shame and Gender

Bartky defines shame in many different ways throughout this chapter; however, she agrees with John Deigh's view of shame, the distressed apprehension of oneself as a lesser creature. Guilt; however, refers to the actions of the person and not her nature. Though difficult to distinguish between, Bartky again agrees with Deigh when he says, "shame is felt over shortcomings and guilt is felt over wrongdoings." Both however are regarded as "condemnation of the self". Bartky gives an example of a class she taught to 40-50 year old men and women teacher. Those in the class were similar in terms of age, professionalism, and seniority. However, she noticed that while teaching, the men answered each question confidently and turned in papers with a stride and without comment. The women, on the other hand, seemed to have lower self-esteem when answering questions and turning in assignments. Bartky explained that the women used what is called "women's language". She expressed that her students were not expressing shame, but "feelings of inadequacy", which is more than acknowledging one's own limits but also admitting to some suffering in the contemplation of the limits.

So why were men more confident than women, when they have very similar backgrounds an merits? For me, I would say it is due to alienation and discipline. The women unknowingly separate themselves from their own capable mind and stereotype themselves by becoming submissive... how women "should" be. Also, these women had obviously been disciplined in terms of gestures and movement. For example, Bartky explains how several women turned assignments in with bowed heads, hunched back, and sunken chest. Women are implicitly taught to believe that regardless of education, status, or qualifications; men are always superior, simply because of the gender difference. This all reverts back to acquiring the feminist consciousness, for the women involved are being victimized and victimizing themselves.

Bartky: On Alienation

As seen by Bartkey, alienation, the fragmentation of oneself, is broken down into three categories; stereotyping, sexual objectification, and cultural domination. Stereotyping refers to the general idea of what woman are supposed to do and how they are expected to act. For example, the "happy" subserviant housewife or the necessary "ladylike" rhetoric of women. Bartkey sees sexual objectification as an internalized oppression. Women are objectified by men and seen merely as sex objects. However, men are not the only to blame for this oppression. Women become their own worst critics and perpetrator of oppression when an ideal image of women is projected, invoking extreme insecurity and oppression due to an unattainable goal. This ideal image enslaves women to believe that all women should look like that and if they do not, they are inferior. Finally, cultural domination, refers to the exclusion of women from cultural partcipation and recognition. As culture can be expressed in so many ways and has great influence over most social factors, the exclusion of women, severely alienates them society and themselves.

To me, it seems the most devastating form of alienation is sexual objectification because not only are women being objectified by external forces, but also by internal forces; themselves. This looks like a lose-lose situation. Can one escape this objectification? Or are women forever the ant under the microscope in the hot sun? I believe there is a way out... the feminist consciousness. She must reject the standards of the ideal image and recognize the beauty in her own image, for each person is as objectified as they allow themselves to be.

Bartky: On Feminist Consciousness

"To be a feminist, one has first to become one." Bartky contends that one cannot become a feminist simply by claiming they are a feminist or supporting a feminist movement, they must experience a profound personal transformation. This transformation is determined by change of behavior, making new friends, responding to events and people differently, changes in habits of consumption, altered living arrangements, or completely reformed style of life. She emphasizes the importance of feminist consciousness and the steps taken to get there. Similar to Marx, Foucault, and Fanon, in regards to freeing from oppression; Bartkey says its the recognition of oppression, awareness of contradictions in social reality and victimization of women that will bring about the onset feminist consciousness. However, mere apprehension of contradictions and other social injustices towards women does not transform into feminist consciousness. She says the consciousness of victimization is "revelatory and immediate"; however, one must understand that there is a division within that consciousness; "I have already sustained an injury... yet, feminist consciousness is a joyous consciousness of one's own power." With the comprehension of the injuries sustained and the gaining of new found power and personal growth, the feminist consciousness can grow.

Bartky's emphasis on apprehension of contradictions and realization of victimization is the key that unlocks the oppressed female cage. Bartky insinuates that one must not look outside to find truths, but look inside first to understand how and to what extent one has been victimized and oppressed. Though the injustice derives from external social reality, Bartky expresses, that women who refuse to acknowledge it, in turn, also create injustice. Therefore, in order to combat the external victimization, one must combat the internal victimization first. This is what, I believe, Bartkey refers to as the "consciousness of strength" and the "consciousness of weakness". It seems as though, as alluded to earlier, Bartkey is expressing the same importance of awareness, recognition, or consciousness that Marx, Foucault, and Fanon emphasized.

Fanon: On the colonized personality

In Fanon's chapter "Colonial War and Mental Disorders", he attacks the idea of Algerian criminality being a result of discrepancies in brain function and specific character traits of Africans. He expresses that colonization, in itself, is dehumanizing. Murders, thefts, and rapes were not a result of primitive brain function, but a direct result of the oppression of colonization. The colonizers believe that they are there to "tame" the "savages"; therefore, inflicting inferiority on the colonized. This systematic condescending view severely affects those subjected to it, in turn developing inferior personalities, fueled by anger and hostility and subsequently gives the colonizer more power and control. This invokes a type of rebellion. The hollow, cold shells of once compassionate humans are prone violence, deviance, and mental disorders. Fanon emphasizes that the colonization itself is the instigator of criminality and rejects the theories of experts claiming idleness of the frontal lobes and domination of the diencephalon. Fanon explains the only way to revolution and emancipation of the colonized personality is to be aware of the untruths planted within each colonized individual and that, total liberation involves every facet of the personality.

Fanon's explanation of criminality in Algeria is dead on! Oppression causes people to either become entirely submissive or extremely angry and/or violent. Both characteristics are not the ingredients for revolution. The submissive mind is subdued and refuses to revive and recognize, while the angry mind is clouded by rage and violent thoughts, also unable to recognize. Therefore, those possessing either of these polarized traits are incapable of a successful revolution because they only use one facet of their personality. This type of enslavement can cause mental illness, but only due to the treatment they have endured. To acknowledge the reports made by Porot and Carothers does the African people a terrible injustice, denying them the divine gift of human capacity. All people by nature, to an extent, are savage. Therefore, in an attempt to "tame" or "subdue" the beast, rebellion will naturally occur. However, most colonized people are not violent by nature, but it is the oppression and the forceful taking of their dignity, land, livelihood, and freedom that forces this behavior. The refusal to recognize the colonized drives them to be seen or heard in some way and unfortunately, many times, it is violence. Essentially, people are all products of their environments. So, for those living in a place full of sorrow, violence, and defeat; what can one expect from their behavior? The answer, nothing but and endless cycle perpetuated sorrow instigating violence, followed by self-defeat.

Fanon: On National Culture

Fanon discusses the assimilation of colonized intellectuals and the importance of Negritude. He submits that these people become apart of the colonizer's culture; using their methods of writing and other forms of artistry. Eventually, the colonized intellectual rejects his accomplishments, finding them alienating from his past life. The colonizer believes that these intellectual individuals are ones that they have saved; however, when these individuals do revert to their native ways, Fanon says it is not only a knock to colonial enterprise but symbolizes the superficiality and pointlessness of the work accomplished. He divides the various phases of this realization into three stages. Stage one: full assimilation of the colonized intellectual. Stage two: the colonized realizes the superficiality of his works, remembers the past, and finally understands the falsity of the colonization. Finally, stage three: the intellectual will immerse himself back into the people and elements of his old life and rouses the people to begin writing to influence the rest with hopes of revolution.

In this chapter, Fanon expresses that the colonizer himself is no longer the only enemy. The imposed culture of the colonizer and its function to force assimilation is a great threat. Therefore, Fanon emphasizes the need for nationalism and nationalism in any region comes before culture; therefore, is a stronger force to fight the colonizer.

I believe that Fanon's view of national culture is extremely important to an effective and successful revolution. Due to the harsh influence of the colonizer's culture on the colonized, the importance of realization and awareness is crucial. Nationalism creates its own culture, in turn, creating a new way of thinking. With any colonized region, the people, broken and helpless, are directly influenced by the foreign culture. I believe that Fanon's emphasis on Negritude derives from the old saying "a taste of your own medicine". With the colonized intellectuals having been immersed in the Western culture, when they return after realizing the superficiality, they have the skills and knowledge to teach the native people to fight back, using the same ammunition once fired at them.

Fanon on the troubles of National Consciousness

Fanon expresses the necessity of a sense of nationalism in order to have a revolution. The colonized must become aware of their oppression in order to rise up and take what has been taken from them. However, Fanon finds many flaws in a postcolonial society. After the colonizer is removed from the region, the proletariat must take power, also removing the native bourgeosie. He expresses that the native upper class lack motivation and the necessary skills to elimiate the colonial system implemented by the previous power.

So, the emphasis on nationalism is crucial for revolution. But the major flaws in nationalism is the fear of the oppressed becoming the opressor. Nationalism by itself cannot institute the government Fanon advocates because its function is divisive. Those strongly promoting nationalism creates a stark model that makes distinctions in class, race, and possibly religious structures. Revolutionaries must understand that while natiopnalism is important, a sense of social equality will bring about governments free from oppression.

Foucault on "The Means of Correct Training"

Foucault now turns his attention to "The Means of Correct Training". This is the disciplinary process which creates "individuals". Foucault stresses to show how strange and twisted this process actually is. Disciplinary power depends on the successful functioning of three components: Heirarchal observation, normalizing judgement, and examination. He explains that observation is key in instilling discipline and it is present in all major societal institutions. Its function is to force people to exhibit desired behaviors by means of strict surveillance. Normalizing judmement takes what is seen as "abnormal" and trajects it into what is considered "normal". And finally, examination is the process that combines the two previous elements and utilizes them. Here the "individual" is observed, written on, and analyzed.

These elements of discipline are crucial pieces in Foucaults attempt to discredit the disciplinary process. To most people, to be an "individual", one is unique equipped with creativity and spontaneity. The disciplinary system takes away from human capacity and potential, making any normal individual, "abnormal". This process aims to disconnect the individual from the masses and isolating them to assimilate to "normal" behavior. This clearly takes a rather simple concept of individuality, twists it and uses it to create the exact opposite.