*Prepares riot gear*
"Smash the Patriarchy."
To me, "smash the Patriarchy" is the most condensed way to express exactly in what way people misunderstand the use of philosophy. I will discuss my hypothesis on the genesis of historical and modern gender dynamics next Tuesday, but right now I want to deconstruct the phrase, its verbal connotations and the image that arises in most people's minds when it is spoken or heard. Now, I really only have the problems with the words "smash" and "Patriarchy" and how they are used in tandem. I have absolutely no quarrel with the word "the," and in fact it is the perfect demonstration of the use of a definite article with a proper noun, which is quite nice. However let us first look at the word "smash." The definition of this word is essentially to violently physically demolish something, to crush it completely and irreparably. "Patriarchy" is a bit trickier. From what I gather, it is the socio-cultural trend of male bias in the public sphere, which is honestly a bit of a mouthful.
Of course, the problem is that it also has the meaning of a social organization structured around the rule of an authoritarian male figure and I feel that often times in the phrase "smash the Patriarchy" the definitions are often conflated. Now putting aside the shadowy cabal of hertonormative misogynists which do in fact govern the world from the top of a very phallic building (about which I am not currently at liberty to speak), I feel that combining the words "smash" and "patriarchy" is not the best idea, as depending on the sentiment of the speaker, they can have very different meanings. On one hand, in the more philosophical definition of "patriarchy," "smashing" is a bit of a misleading metaphor, because in order to "smash the patriarchy" a frank and civil societal discussion on gender dynamics in which both the grievances of both the progressives and the status quo are addressed fairly and in the spirit of cooperation, while in the (more easily understood), literal definition is essentially a call for belligerence and conflict which is among the worst ways to convince anyone of anything.
I do have reason that I credit the literal definition of "smashing the patriarchy" as being more easily understood. It has very little to do at all with feminism, in fact, and far more to do with epistemology. As it was only very recently that humans as a species developed the ability for abstract thought, it would make sense that we have a smaller and less organized neurology to comprehend them than more concrete things. Because of this, it requires a greater application of conscious effort to conceive of an abstract idea to a concrete one and, especially when not paying attention, a mind will tend to gravitate to the simplistic and concrete. This is especially true of things which are commonly observed, as our minds concentrate on novelty. In addition, impassioned emotion tends to override critical and abstract thought. Hence the power of buzzwords, which, by means of brevity, repetition and emotional weight, drown out attentiveness to their actual meaning, in favor of their simplest connotation.
With this in mind as we return to "smash the Patriarchy." A phrase which, though simple, is loaded with meaning. In addition, the violent connotations are from the ire of those rightly frustrated by the lethargic pace of cultural change, as they wish to express their growing impatience. While I would not credit anyone with actually believing that there is a literal regime of oppressive men (especially one that hosts a lovely potluck dinner every third Thursday of the month), I do sense that on both sides of the issue there is a growing hostility because of the aggressiveness of the phrase (not that they really needed much help anyway). To feminists, it is the rallying cry to be close minded and belligerent to those who disagree with their opinions, while to the status quo, it is the confirmation that feminists do not in fact care for anyone but their own supporters and are willing to be entirely unreasonable with their demands. I know that being unreasonably bipartisan is in vogue in our political culture, but honestly it's really a shit way to get things done.
Sincere regards,
Michael Coffey
(PS: Please be mindful that I am not expressing any opinion on gender dynamics. This post is designed to demonstrate how poorly crafted rhetoric can polarize political opinion, which is to the detriment of any political culture. Also let it be known to all that I will identify the socio-cultural trends of gender and sexuality as "Gender Dynamics" and "Feminism" as the political progressive movement focusing primarily on it.)
No comments:
Post a Comment