Substituting girlhood for sex in Butler's "Bodies That Matter" we have, "girlhood is an ideal construct which is forcibly materialized through time" (236). And as we discuss girlhood in this course, we are forming it for "there is no reference to a pure body which is not at the same time a further formation of that body" (240).
Girlhood along with other "isms" and "hoods" is a glorious paradox operating in the realm of definitions but also refuting the categorization of the definition. Butler in "Imitation and Gender Insubordination" declares when an individual declares what "I" is sets up corollaries of what "I" isn't. This creates "regulatory regimes" which limit future roles of what "I" may become (124). What is performed or declared for a time is not the only possible act or definition on the continuum of identity.
Indeed, girlhood (life?) is a state of emergence into a new realm. Butler's uses the terminology of LGBT in referring to closets, but hopefully there are many more doors, windows, rooms for an individual to discover. Emerging from one edifice to another may leave one even more unsure of identity.
One way to discover and create identity is through play. While the idea of play is often limited to children, play is a catalyst for learning, discovering, and creating. As Butler says, "This is deep-seated play, psychically entrenched play" (127). The roles that are acted out are not stationary; instead the roles are fluid and dynamic. This allows the many facets of identity to show thereby overcoming the regulatory regimes and creating new possibilities. Perhaps this idea play facilitated the transformation from sugar and spice through pink think to today. Unfortunately, play is also used to cement gender role; for example, girls play with dolls and boys play with balls.
An answer to yesterday's question is also found in "Imitation." Girlhood needs to be talked about since not being addressed in the discourse is more damaging than "to be present within discourse as an abiding falsehood" (128). Not speaking of girlhood denies its existence. (As a political note, this may be an advantage for Mormons having Romney in the Presidential race.)
Finally in "Bodies" Butler quotes Freud, 'the ego is first and foremost a bodily ego' (242). Identity then comes from the body. The phrase male ego brings certain ideas to mind. What is a female ego? If it comes from the body how does it differ from the male ego? How do media images of the body affect the female ego? Are female images of the body more of a regulatory regime than male images of the body? What is the price on girlhood?
It seems that we hear a lot more about the fragile male ego—this may be because of mediated representations that connect the fragile male ego to the sexual bodies of women (i.e. when a women rejects a man or makes fun of him—he is often shown to suffer from a “wounded male ego”). But what about the female ego in relation to male bodies? Why don't we speak of “wounded female egos” in the same way we speak of the “wounded male ego”? The answer may rest with the idea that women's bodies are compulsively regulated by a set of norms or codes that govern their sexual power (i.e. they are seen to hold all the cards when it comes to sex and men are perceived to be begging for it all the time). As discussed in the Pink Think and Liesbet van Zoonen articles many women are self-regulating, especially when it comes to their sex identifications. I would guess that the female ego is just as wounded as the male ego when she is rejected by a man—but this more often goes unseen in media representations (unless the woman is portrayed as "abject" or disidentifying with regulatory norms) because it contradicts neoliberal postfeminist ideals of regulated female bodies.
ReplyDeleteAs Nancy Chodorow would say in binary fashion, 'female egos are porous' while the male ego is rigid. I am not sure she was using metaphoric language but I don't think I agree with her anyway, in terms of how boys and girls are different. However, with roles changing, I am curious as to how she would view the parent/child bond when fathers stay at home with the kids.
ReplyDeleteSexual innuendos aside, Chodorow's characterization of the female/male egos is fairly accurate. I particularly take to the permeability factor of a woman's ego, dominated not only by a fierce, indoctrinated spirit of competition with other women that makes her super-aware of how she is viewed by members of her own sex, but also the media's influential, masculinized gaze that dicates the standard of female beauty. With so many different measurements, depending on what a woman is watching, reading, investigating, or "feeling" intimately for a partner, her ego is saturated with conflicting ego determiners. The idea of a "fragile male ego" seems inherently dominated by the rejection of the male by a woman. The wounding of a woman's ego, which never gets labeled frail probably because it isn't considered as "she" is often times the object, can be attacked in a multitude of ways that goes far beyond the surface of her body. It's beyond the rejection of her body as a sexual offering.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the concept of a woman's ego is/will change in light of a changing workforce? I think there was a time when women were asked to have no ego, at least not in the sense of competition, but I wonder if this is shifting as trends in higher education and managerial and administrative position hiring continue to favor women. It makes me think of the readings for Thursday from van Zoonen when she discusses liberal versus radical feminism. It seems liberal feminism would argue that male and female egos are the same and should be equal, while radical feminism would argue for equal but different definitions of the two.
ReplyDeleteAnd Colleen, I also really love your phrase "a glorious paradox" to describe girlhood. I am really seeing this when working on my Pinterest board - there are so many conflicting images of girlhood.
Growing up I had no concept of a female ego, but my friends and I would often talk about male egos, as though it excused their behavior.
DeleteI assemble ideas of girlhood, like ideas of feminism, from pieces of many puzzles. Can this fit here? Does this fit me?
I think women have always been competitive; however, it has been pushed under the surface, and out of view it has dangerous undercurrents. This may be one reason the radical feminists encountered obstacles when trying to operate without hierarchies.
Would male egos be based on performance and female ego on appearance? I hope there is more motivating me then that.