Pea Soup

After reading both articles this week, I felt like I had a better understanding of the way people see and interpret women socially. But, at the same time, certain parts of the articles left me questioning things.

"Safety and closure, which have always been held out to women as the ideals of female destiny, are not places of adventure, or experience, or life. Safety and closure (and enclosure) are, rather the mirror of the Lady of Shallot. They forbid life to be experienced directly" (Heilbrun 20)

When I saw this quote I thought of history. Before the Industrial Revolution and before technology in general women lived a life full of bare tools and activities. By that I mean rocks, bones, farming, hunting, etc. I'm curious as to when the whole idea of "safety and closure...as the ideals of female destiny" (Heilbrun 20) were decided. Because in no way shape or form could any man or woman survive in an environment as plain and simple yet dangerous and unknown as there was back then. Even with the industrial revolution, women had to take charge and start living a life of adventure so to speak since they had to throw themselves into a life that was completely unfamiliar to them. Many times I feel like I automatically relate the idea of an independent woman to someone who started from the bottom. Someone that was not riding on the back of their father's bank account for their entire lives.

Campbell on the other hand, made me look at this quote differently. Her extensive definition of agency made me think of this quote differently because it changed who had the control in the situation. The quote itself makes it look like the control in the situation is from the patriarchal society. Campbell on the other hand, makes it looks like the woman has the control, the woman has the agency. The woman has the agency to do whatever she wants. She has the control to show what she needs to show and how to show it. She can practice that concept all she wants and learn from other people how to perfect it in certain situations, but she indeed has the power.

In general I feel like Heilbrun makes women look weak, as if they can not survive living their lives as public as they would like. As if they cannot survive the sacrifice needed. Personally, I do not know if I could survive it, but I know a bunch of strong independent women that could. 

"That agency is cooperative and collaborative is related not just to communicative and cultural competence but also to a shared ability to evaluate, a point made delightfully by Robert M. Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when his beginning composition students demonstrate their ability to recognize and agree about which themes are better. There are tacit but clearly recognized cultural standards at any given time for performance and for what is experienced as “eloquent,” however that term is understood. As Aristotle wrote, that is what makes it possible to identify an art, a techn ́e, of rhetoric. " (Campbell 6). 

When I read this except from Campbell I immediately thought of the working woman in society. The typical working woman perseveres through a daily struggle regarding their job, their family (if they have one), their personal relationships etc. It is well known that gender discrimination is still occuring in everyday life, especially in the workplace. Women are expected to have "feminine jobs" such as working as a secretary or an assistant, never in a place of power. However, when a woman is placed in a seat of power, they suddenly lose their femininity sadly. Campbell says that "agency is cooperative and collaborative" (Campbell 6), when someone wants to be successful, they study and figure out how to get where they want to be. If they want a position that is currently occupied by a male figure, then they will pick out the things that they thing they need to emulate. That person is creating a collaboration of agency with the person they want to be so to speak. They are figuring out what's best for their situation.

But, if further down the line, you have more powerful women in that same position, then would it still be seen as something "masculine". Meaning that would you still be losing your femininity if you're emulating a powerful woman who emulated a powerful women before they had the position? Why is it that just because one man was in a spot, that suddenly the idea or traits of that role can't change. Isn't there a difference between a woman in power versus a man in power? Why are the male traits of being in power more significant and important than female ones? 

Heilbrun defines power as, "power is the ability to take one's place in whatever discourse is essential to action and the right to have one's part matter" (Heilbrun 18). Why would one's gender matter is my question. I understand that there are certain gender rules in place in every culture and society, but with a concept as broad as power--how can there be such limitations for women? Power is a quality that all humans (and animals physically speaking) can achieve. When was there a sudden shift in how we made it only accessable to men. Women have always been a part of power especially when history needed it most.  Whether it was the harvesting when there was no game to hunt or taking over the industries when the men were at war. Also for the record, women would sometimes fight in the war like in the Soviet Union or even hunt way back when if it was needed. 

Look at lions. The females are the ones who run the whole thing. They hunt for the food, and limit the people in their pack excluding the males who just can't stand to be around each other. They are practically in charge. Looking at that, why is there even a conflict between "the destiny of being unambiguously a woman and the woman subject's palpable desire, or fate to be something else." (Heilbrun 21). Why is it even a question? Powerful women have always been a part of history, and there haven't always been powerful men in the spots before them. Campbell says, "that agency is linked to and effected through artistry or artfulness; it is learned." (Campbell 6). If there was no male in the position or anyone really before, how could someone learn to be in that spot? I believe it's because they just have it in them. Throughout one's life they learn different things and every person's life is unique with what they learn and practice. Why can't a woman just have the power to do so, like Florence Nightingale or Joan of Arc. Why must they have masculine qualities when in reality, they learned all their qualities in some cases from other females. In other words, just because there is one pea in a soup, does not mean that you should call the soup in general a "pea soup".

Works Cited:

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. “Agency: Promiscuous and Protean.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 2.1 (2005): 1-19. 

Heilbrun, Carolyn. “Introduction.” In Writing a Woman’s Life. New York: Norton, 1988. 11-24.