Outrage of the right and left: are they different? And the special case of feminism
When I think of people who read the Nation, and of the Religious Right, I see they have one thing in common: they feel outraged about what's going on in America. They are outraged by each other.
Now I read the Nation, and I'm outraged at what the Religious Right wants for America. I've actually written a whole novel about such a future. But it worries me that I share a sense of outrage with the Religious Right, and I wonder if I'm upset in the same way.
As far as I can see, the Religious Right feels outraged that America has been overtaken by a bunch of sexually promiscuous, decadent, homosexual intellectuals, who pollute the God-fearing children of our nation with their filth on TV, who have banned prayer from schools, who want to traduce the sacrament of marriage by allowing gays to marry, and who countenance the horrible murder of unborn children.
I, on the other hand, am outraged that the Religious Right wants to use the government to advance their religious views, wants to oppress women and persecute people who aren't straight, and wants to stop sciencific progress. I'm also outraged that rich people, especially in the shape of CEOs, are very greedy. This outrages me not because I find their greed obscene, but because their greed flourishes in a society that doesn't take care of its sick and its poor, many of whom are children.
How is our outrage different? The outrage of the Religious Right has a defining sense of persecution, paranoia and besiegement about it. Out there is a great "them" oppressing "us."
Now I don't think of my outrage a result of a "them" against an "us." I might single out CEOs for special opprobium, but I don't think there's a great conspiracy against the likes of me. My outrage is really against the ignobility of "all of us" -- against our blindnesses about the injustices of our society, an injustice inflicted upon us by ignorance and indifference.
Maybe my outrage is inclusive, while the outrage of the Religious Right is exclusive. When the left takes on a sense of persecution, or feels itself a lonely "us" against a terrible "them," I'm not willing to share their outrage. I don't like to feel that my outrage stems from a group feeling of self-righteousness. Hey, I'm as fucked-up as anybody else.
Which brings me to feminism. This is born of an outrage against the patriarchy: by definition, men: or, at least, men are the beneficiaries of it, whether they're feminists or not. A definite "us," a definite "them." Is it possible to have an outrage as a feminist that doesn't fall within a them/us, men/women binary? I wonder. Would feminism be more "noble" if it could get rid of its "them/us" outrage? Could it? Should it? I wonder.
I'm struggling about my own outrage: I don't want it to be an "us vs. them" thing. I don't even want it to be an outrage of the middle against the extremes. I want my outrage to be inclusive, but when it comes to feminism and GLBT equality issues, it seems to naturally fall into "us vs. them." But something about that bugs me. Not being GLBT myself, I can imagine how "us vs. them" that must feel, but there must be a way of not arguing from a persecution complex, although that is exactly what is happening. Maybe there's a difference here: the Religious Right's feeling of being persecuted is FALSE (how are gays persecuting them?), but the GLBT feeling of being persecuted is REAL (and so is the feminist feeling). Maybe that's it: I don't want to propagate a FALSE feeling of persecution, which is where I veer away from many other leftists, who are often well-off and have no reason to feel persecuted, whereas a working poor person may have every reason to feel persecuted in our society. So OK, when your feeling is based on reality, go ahead, indulge all your "us vs. them" feeling. While I remain slightly suspicious.
posted by Adam @ 12:27 PM
3 Comments:
Jeez, my first blog spam. Third or fourth one today. Anybody know how to block this spammer permanently?
No idea re. spam. But I have been thinking of just this same thing. Here's my current theory, which I should probably blog at some point:
It seems to be a peculiarly American phenomenon that everyone thinks ot themselves as marginalized, as contrarian, as not-mainstream. Think about it: every major political argument out there is positioned as if it comes from a place on the edge, against "the dominant culture." (As distinct from claiming to be middle class, or normal, or whatever--although even then it seems most people talk about "average Americans" but few people claim to be one.) I think it's a big part of the American self-image.
And I was thinking, on my last road trip with PK, of how both the religious right and the liberal left have some things in common. We both think Americans ("the dominant culture") watches too much tv. We both think that violent video games are kind of a bad idea. We differ on porn, but not always; I'd be willing to bet that there is porn that you and I find really offensive and degrading, same as the religious right finds all porn offensive and degrading.
I think this is probably what Hillary Cliinton's thinking about, btw, in terms of political positioning.
Anyway, w/r/t feminism and men: I honestly don't think it *is* a binary. I mean, men are just as fucked over by sexism as women in many ways, and in some ways even more. The patriarchy isn't, by definition, "men"; it's an ideological system that *privileges* men, but it also fucks them over. The trick, of course, and why so many feminists including me fall into the easy shorthand of bitching about "men" (which I don't actually do very often), is that it's like the double-edge of being a trophy wife: if your fucked over by a system that nonetheless gives you a certain kind of social status, it's *very* hard to step outside the system and be critical of it in any substantive way.
I thought about it a bit more, and added a bit about false and real feelings of persecution in the post.
It's interesting this American admiration for the edge or the lone ranger cowboy: it's a way of setting yourself up to be persecuted by the entire society. Ego taken to the extreme. Yet America, like everywhere else, is very herd-like. Individualism is there to be co-opted by the entire society the second it raises its brave little head. Just watch the stampede to Cindy Sheehan's side. Not that I don't think it's great -- it's just that most of us need a whole lot of permission before we set out on our "own." We're this great big herd of "individualists." Our individualism is one of those beautiful American myths that are belied by reality, but still very beautiful, or maybe all the more beautiful for that. Like the one about getting rich if you just work hard.
I think you're right: there's a lot of moral outrage the left and the religious right share. It might even come from the same place, although it expresses itself so differently. Hillary manages to blend 'em a bit, being a religious person herself. The outrage is one of morality, a sense of justice crossed. "This isn't right, dammit!"
I'd like to say "This isn't right, dammit!" without saying "Hey, what are you terrible people doing to us?"
Post a Comment
<< Home