LENGTHY POST ON FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS

There is an interesting comment thread over at Feministe about "false consciousness." I have never actually heard a feminist use the term "false consciousness."  I imagine that this term is most frequently used by Marxist feminists, since "false consciousness" is a concept associated with Marxism.  The general idea (and I do not claim to have a nuanced understanding of the matter) is that people can be misled by the dominant ideology (the common set of beliefs and values taken for granted in their society) to act or think in ways contrary to their best interests without necessarily even realizing it.   

Like a lot of Americans, I automatically recoil when I hear the term "false consciousness."  It sounds authoritarian.  It sounds like an excuse for those who believe they know the "truth" to impose their will on those who are supposedly laboring under delusions.  It sounds like a reason not to have to engage in debate or dialogue; one can simply dismiss one's opponents by saying they have "false consciousness."  Part of the problem, of course, is the idea's association with Marxism, which automatically makes us think of totalitarian states like the U.S.S.R. and China and North Korea, in which repression and authoritarianism for the common good were seen as the solution to capitalist excesses. And if there is one value that I hold dear, it is that I am quite capable of deciding what is best for myself, as is every other average citizen out there. 

But suppose we strip away the unsavory connotations of "false consciousness."  Let us further accept that every adult human being's right to self-determination should be respected, regardless of sex or background or educational level or mental impairment, and regardless of whether we believe that human being is acting in accordance with his or her best interests.  I would assert that there is value in recognizing that people do not always see the ways in which societal institutions or assumptions may hurt them or hurt the class of people to which they belong.  This is particularly true of women because our culture is rife with all sorts of assumptions about women which inure to our detriment -- assumptions about our essential nature (including the assumption that there even is an essential feminine nature), our capabilities, our proper role, and our relationship with men. 

You're probably not ever going to catch me using the term "false consciousness." And you are certainly never going to catch me saying that women, or any other types of individuals, are somehow incapable of identifying their own interests and acting to further them.  I often do, however, see instances when women will buy into a paradigm or set of sexist assumptions that I believe are either not good for them as individuals or are not good for women in general.  But rather than write off the instances I have observed with the one-size-fits-all explanation of "false consciousness," I believe there a number of explanations for this phenomenon:

--  Unquestioned assumptions:  Often assumptions about gender are so ingrained and so much a part of the fabric of our culture that we simply take them for granted without questioning whether these assumptions are correct or whether these assumptions hurt us.  This was even more true in the past.  Thus, my mother was well into adulthood before she questioned her family's assumption that she did not need a college education like her brother; nor did she question societal expectations that the only appropriate careers for women were teaching, nursing, and secretarial work.  Today, I have met many women who have never questioned the assumption that parenting -- at least its day-to-day nuts and bolts aspect -- is primarily a female responsibility.  I am sure there are numerous other examples.

-- Failure to recognize external constraints upon our ability to make free choices. This is, I suppose, a subset of the concept of unquestioned assumptions, but it is worth a special mention since the notion of "choice feminism" has been hotly debated in recent months.  A lot of women may say, "It was my choice to do x or y."  That may well be true.  But sometimes (and before you start yelling at me, I said sometimes, not always), women do not recognize constraints or limitations that do not apply to men and that may drive, at least in part, the decisions they make.  So Jane's choice to stay home with her kids may have been her preference and her decision.  But she may not be recognizing the fact that her decision was driven in many ways by societal factors that affect her differently than her husband.  Like the fact that everyone around her expects her and not her husband to be the children's primary caretaker.  Or the fact that mothers often face doubts among bosses and colleagues about their commitment to their work in a way that men and childless women do not.  Or the fact that a man who takes time off from work to be a stay-at-home-dad is stigmatized in a way a woman is not.  Or the fact that a woman is likely to make less money than her husband.  And on and on. 

--  Internalized attitudes one holds even while recognizing that they are wrong.  Even the most staunch feminist might have terrible body image or have trouble ridding herself of the notion that she automatically bears greater responsibility for housework than her male partner.  No matter how much we may question and critique our cultural assumptions they may continue to have an emotional hold on us that may be hard to shake.  Thus, on one level a woman might recognize that her inherent worth does not hinge on her dress size or the attractiveness of her figure-- but on another level that woman might have trouble shaking the feeling that she is less than worthy as a human being if she is anything but model-thin.  Our rational thinking alone may not be sufficient to overcome beliefs with which we have lived since birth. 

-- Women who have different values.  Many women may recognize that they are in a subordinate position but accept it because they do not value social equality.  A woman may believe that God has mandated a subordinate role for women in the home and in society.  She may not feel any urge to protest that subordination because she believes that whatever God has mandated is good by definition.  Such a woman's belief (wrong though I think it is) is not necessarily the product of unquestioned assumptions.

-- Out-and-out disagreement about what harms us and what doesn't.  Reasonable adults can disagree.  Here I differ from the traditional conception of "false consciousness" because I recognize that a person may have thought through all the issues, examined all of her assumptions, and simply reached different conclusions than I have.  For example, there are feminists who think that high heels are contrary to the equality and dignity of women.  I don't.  It's not that I have failed to consider the issue.  It's not that I have internalized an irrational belief that I must wear high heels. I have thought about it and I just don't have a problem with high heels.  On the other hand other women may disagree with what I consider obvious truths about what is contrary to women's dignity, welfare, and equality of opportunity.  Even though I think the women with whom I disagree are wrong, I am capable of recognizing that they may have considered the issue.   

-- Women who are differently positioned than the rest of us.  Many women are rewarded for taking anti-feminist positions.  Anti-feminist women writers and pundits like Caitlin Flanagan or Carrie Lukas or Ann Coulter are not acting contrary to their best interests when they loudly opine that a woman's place is in the home, or constantly use derogatory terms like "girl soldier," etc. etc. Anti-feminism is, in fact, these women's bread and butter. Similarly, someone like Paris Hilton, who revels in being a walking stereotype of woman-as-vapid-sexbot, is riding a tidal wave to more fame and more fortune for doing so.  Other women may not be so overtly anti-feminist but they may underestimate the power of sexism in our culture because it has not affected them or held them back in any way they can perceive, or any way at all.  Upper middle class white professional women like me can easily fall into this category. It is easy for us to take for granted the accomplishments of feminists who came before us, and it is easy for us not to see why certain issues are important (like my younger self's failure to see why the right to an abortion is important.). 

In sum, "false consciousness" as a concept may have use, even a great deal of use.  Certainly "consciousness raising" sessions among feminists in the '60s and '70s were a valuable exercise for women working through the myriad ways in which they had taken for granted their own subordination or failed to recognize ways in which the values and institutions with which they lived were operating contrary to their best interests.  On the other hand, "false consciousness" should never be treated as a one-size-fits-all response to everyone who disagrees with feminist ideas or with one's particular feminist view point.***

*** NOTE:  I suspect that the notion of "false consciousness" is rarely, if ever, used by feminists in this manner, despite the protestations of those who enjoy attacking strawfeminists.  In fact, as the Feministe comments thread makes clear, many, if not most, feminists are (like me) uncomfortable with invoking the notion of "false consciousness" at all.

Comments

[Sandy]

Very thoughtful and enjoyable post. Your "different values" category is a good example of the problems with cultural relativism - in intro. anthropology, the question of "If all cultural values are equal, what about Hitler's Germany?" is always used to illustrate that.

I've been around more tolerant feminists than not (is that strange?), but I have noticed that an invocation of Patriarchy (as in, "you're a patriarchial tool") often replaces the term false consciousness.

[Dilan Esper]

Though I am no Marxist, I did get my feminism with a side of Marxism (as well as Lacan) when I studied it, so "false consciousness" was certainly part of the discussion. I think this post gets at some of the categories of what could be called "false consciousness" and also gets at what some of the problems with the concept are.

Nonetheless, it IS a useful concept. A nice example is that in many cultures where female genital mutilation is prevalent, the procedure is performed by and the girls who undergo it are procured by women. And some (though certainly by no means all) women who have underwent the procedure defend it is a useful way of ensuring keeping young women from becoming sexually active at too young an age.

I see no better description for that than "false consciousness". The concept is certainly more debatable when the facts are not so extreme, but there are, unfortunately, circumstances in this world where women help defend and perpetuate practices that are unambiguously bad for women.

[Patrick]

Interesting post, but I have to add one additional caveat to your analysis.

If you read Twiggy, for example, in her infamous blowjob post, you get an assertion of false consciousness that is unfalsifiable and undemonstrable. Any attempt or piece of evidence to show that it isn't (or even that does show it) false consciousness is simply seen as an additional rationalization and yet more false consciousness.

I believe it is this property of the concept that separates FC from simply being mistaken.

And that kind of FC is simply never useful in any kind of serious debate. It amounts to really nothing more a refusal to engage in any debate at all, relying entirely on ideology.

[delagar]

By Twiggy, does Patrick mean Twisty? As in Twisty Faster?

May I suggest that Patrick go back and reread the infamous blowjob debate a little more carefully, as he has apparently misread that as woefully as he has misread the great Twisty's name?

[thinking girl]

oh, how sad, all the slagging of Marxism. I happen to think Marxism is one of the most sophisticated and complex theories in modern economic and political philosophy. But then, I'm Canadian. We don't have such a hate/hate relationship with communism/socialism.

but the point... great post. In my feminist group of friends, and in my feminist theory classes, we talk about false consciousness all the time. I don't htink it's that far removed from modern ACADEMIC feminist thought - but in feminism as a popular social theory perhaps it is. I'm rather surprised to hear that it isn't part of the woodwork, so to speak, of contemporary feminism on a popular level. I agree, I think parhaps "patriarchy" is a common substitute.

thanks!

[twf]

I was going to write on exactly this topic, but you beat me to it. And said everything I wanted to say, better than I could.

I think Patrick has a point about falsifiability, though perhaps not in the specific context of Twisty's famous BJ post. Any theory that takes any argument against it as evidence of its truth is flawed. (Of course there are fossil records of evolution... God put them there for us to find! Of course you think doing foo is in your best interest... you've been brainwashed by the patriarchy!)

[Sidebar-for the other half]

"(By the way, far be it for me to stick up for Ann Coulter, but she has never stated that a woman’s place is in the home. She has said that (a) children benefit from having a full-time parent, and (b) women who choose to be full-time parents should not be looked down upon for making that choice.)"

I think I'm feeling kind of ill. I never thought that I'd agree with that horrid woman--and yet you've proven me wrong. Damn you Richard! A pox on your house!

[mythago]

Oh, c'mon. We all can do basic logic. If children benefit from having a parent in the home full-time, and the only people who are supposed to choose to be at home full-time are women then....gosh! Do you think she's suggesting that a mother's place is in the home?

(And let's drop this "full-time parent" nonsense. Nobody suggests that Dad is a "part-time parent" because he goes to work 9-5, or that he stops being a parent while he's earning a paycheck.)

[Richard]

Mythago wrote: If children benefit from having a parent in the home full-time, and the only people who are supposed to choose to be at home full-time are women then....gosh! Do you think she's suggesting that a mother's place is in the home?

I think maybe you're stuck in the 1950s Mythago. I saw a research survey a few months ago that suggested that the number of stay-at-home fathers has TRIPLED in the last 30 years. That's a 100% increase every 10 years! And I know from personal experience practicing law that the number of FATHERS receiving child support from mother's has also increased significantly, even in the last 15 years. Not only that, but friends of mine who have kids share the child rearing duties, something that didn't happen in the '50s. Do you live in the back waters of Appalachia?

[Kris]

Richard, I think Mythago was saying that the people who make the comments you attribute to Ann Coulter and then claim that they are not saying that mothers are the ones who should be home full time with their kids are being disingenuous. And that by stating that Ann Coulter makes those comments but doesn't say that women should be the ones at home with their kids, you are being disingenuous as well. Mythago, am I correct?