Flowings of Your Everlasting Taffyman

The Reality of False Consciousness
“Karl Marx used the term false consciousness to describe the class consciousness of subordinate classes who had internalized the view of the dominant class” (Andersen and Taylor 194). Marx uses this term describing how a dominant group in society can pervert the causes of the subordinate groups by turning them on themselves. In war, this would be similar to a “divide and conquer” strategy, and in class we have referred to similar situations as a double bind. I understand that this is not specifically a sociology class, or a socialist or political theorist class, but I feel that the term could be easily accepted when looking at the issues that surround the women’s rights movement today. Some of these issues being the double bind in sexuality, beauty and the female body image, career choices for women, and in violence against women. The method of persuasion seems to be socialization, which is the education of people into roles that accept this patriarchal view, something that often occurs early in life through family and schooling, and then later through peers and the media. Several of the essays in the book give clear testimonies of both the pervasiveness of the patriarchal system and observations and suggestions as to how to surmount it, the most common and obvious suggestions being to unite against the force of the dominant power. After discussing the ways in which the dominant power of our society infiltrates and persuades people on these issues through socialization, I will try to incorporate some ideas I think would be helpful in removing society from this false consciousness.
One of the biggest struggles for change within the women’s rights movement is and has always been the way society views the female form which continues to exist because of the double binds placed on women. A human’s body is essentially directly attached to that human’s self worth and this has been a powerful tool in many societies to control women. In many cultures this is displayed through the confinement of women in the home, in separate places, behind clothes, make up or hair styles. This struggle also includes the exploitation of women for work, sex, and power. Steven Schacht records some of this in his list of male privileges, parts of numbers 4 through 12 and more all include talk of women being obligated by society to buy clothes and makeup to cover up their bodies, be used as entertainment for men, be available for abuse and yet be responsible to bear the burden of children, all because the dominant power has chosen this burden for women. These tasks keep women from standing up to men because not only must they fulfill these roles in order to be respected by the men, but also men have convinced many women that they must fulfill these roles in order to be respected by other women. Jenny’s book on “sluts” for instance, is an example where a woman who is comfortable with her body may be treated as an outcast by other women because she does not fit the dominant power’s role for women. Many women fearing backlash for being different then feel compelled to act “feminine,” in some cases leading to what many feminists consider exploitation. This view is not always considered exploitation because some feminists promote the use of traditional “feminine” qualities such as dress and make up wearing so as to find what they regard to be the traditional and proper place for women. bell hooks discusses several of the ways the standard of women’s sexuality has been exploited. One example she uses is that of Tina Turner, a famous singer who’s stage persona was created by a man who was abusing her. Turner, who eventually broke away from her abusive husband is left wondering what role to play, and decides to try and take the same stage persona she once had declaring it hers. hooks insists this is just giving into the society and that Turner by accepting the role given to her, is perpetuating the control men have over women’s bodies. All of these disagreements in themselves show the influence of false consciousness, as the opposing views leave them criticizing each other rather than the dominant power that put them into the situation. In class we discuss the same topic, is selling sex appeal taking the feminist stance, or is winning without the use of this traditionally exploited piece of humanity the feminist way? This question comes up in another field of study for feminists, that of the job market.
Throughout history women have had a significant role in the labor of societies, however due to the patriarchy of these societies they are rarely given credit. It was not until very recently that a notion of women staying home entirely for the sake of taking care of children became popular, and then, only for the middle and upper classes. This way of life did however have a profound impact on the way of life in the United States to the extent that even now, though it is nearly impossible for a family to live on a single income, it is still prevalent as a possible “ideal” situation for a portion of US citizens. The problem is that this portion, though not making up the majority, does seem to have a good deal of impact on the rest of society. So though it is very hard for women to support their families without working there is still blame placed on parents and more specifically women because they are not there to play the role of care taker for their children. This double bind leaves women with a dilemma, they are supposed to work, and they are supposed to stay home. To make matters worse, the patriarchal society makes the jobs that women can have subordinate to the positions men can have. Padavic and Reskin call this the “glass ceiling effect,” women provide the labor while men make up the administration and thus the higher paying jobs. Women are not expected and rarely supported in moving up the corporate ladder, which means they are seldom found in the top administrative roles. This stratification in jobs coupled with the fact that there is still sexism within the workplace and within the payroll leaves women significantly worse off than their male peers. Recent studies show women make about seventy cents for every dollar a man makes. Bose and Bridges Whaley show that women also tend to be more accepted in careers that are deemed feminine or “pink collar” such as teacher or nurse, jobs that are extremely important but also extremely underappreciated. Once again these examples show that double binds placed on women keep them from confronting the dominant power. This sort of prejudice, though blatantly obvious when looking at numbers is rarely so clear in actual situations. Unlike in the past the prejudice of today is quite subtle as Diane Lopez pointed out, and makes the task for equality that much harder.
One way in which this prejudice seems extremely obvious is the way in which women are treated, and the violence against women in the world. Violence takes many different forms, from nasty jokes told on smoke breaks at work, to mass media coverage of a staged violent undressing of a pop star, to the mass rapes that occur during war and unrest. The violence against women seems to stem from the insecurity of men, and sometimes other women. Men’s insecurity may come from the fact that men are supposed to be playing the role of being superior, where as in reality they understand that they can not fulfill this role and so must try to maintain at least the facade through dominance. The essay on fraternities shows a side of this, where men go through trials to prove themselves superior to others, but end up doing things that only display their ignorance, intolerance and immaturity. Sometimes this is taken to the extreme and people get hurt, but one could argue that the whole concept of an organization who trains young people to become hyper masculine, obedient, and intolerant is a formula for violence. A similar insecurity is displayed through women who use violence against themselves such as is the case with many eating disorders and in those who cut themselves, which are displays of power seen more often as “feminine.” These acts are often also associated with the inability to cope with an unobtainable ideal. Another double bind concerning women in regards to violence is visible from reports of a woman who is victimized late at night, while by herself or while intoxicated. “She shouldn’t have been there, done that or had that to drink,” are common rebuttals to such news. This seems silly considering everyone in this country is supposed to be guaranteed the right to walk around, be by themselves, or have a drink. So somehow, because the victim is a woman all of a sudden she is to blame. The dominant powers must have their subordinates under control if they can keep the blame off themselves and put it on to the victim of a horrible crime. In order to change these double binds we must first understand how they were set in place.
In every society there is natural process of socialization, a term meaning the normal process of learning social patterns, roles and processes which is where the false consciousness begins. As we learned from Barrie Thorne and Michael Kimmel and Barbara Risman boys and girls are raised differently with different expectations for each. Boys are often taught to be tough, independent, unemotional, confident, competitive and driven to succeed. Men are supposed to grow up to be powerful and wealthy, regardless of the cost. Girls, or good girls as we are told by the results Simmons (Odd Girl Out) found straight from the mouths of young girls are to be “thin, pretty, blond, helpless, dependent, and stupid,” or basically subordinate to their male counterparts. It is with this foundation and the subsequent years of the media pounding reminders of this into people that men are able to exploit women through sexuality and body image, keep them from obtaining good jobs and treat them as less than human through violent acts.
When confronted with all these situations in which there seems to be no option it is hard to maintain faith in a movement. That is, until one looks at a greater picture. The answer to any double bind is simple; get those affected by them to stand up to them. The false consciousness is charade the dominant power hopes to keep the subordinates believing. By uniting those who are in favor of a new way, in which people are equal, there would be a new majority. Michael Moore a leftist political writer wrote in his last book that if the minorities, meaning those who are not white males, would stand up as one front they could win every political race no contest. That means they could have females in every head office in the nation. Now this may seem a little far fetched so here is another option, instead of fighting the white man, why not get him to join the cause by forcing him to see it from the position of the minority? The gender training that boys receive often allows them to ignore or be oblivious to the positions of others, so in all issues the movement has to put it into their terms. Instead of just some woman out there being victimized make it clear that it could be their sister. Instead of allowing rich white men to maintain large fortunes while others suffer, increase taxes on them so that they feel they are suffering too. These are small things but necessary nonetheless for without the dominant power backing the movement, true equality will never exist. Through the unification of subordinates, or the inclusion of the dominate powers in the struggle against the false consciousness, or both, the binding system can be dissolved.






Andersen, Margaret L. and Howard F. Taylor. Sociology: The Essentials. 2003.