I think people who ask questions like that are taking an unwarranted shortcut--something like, "Well, we know patriarchy affects people" (true) "and we know patriarchy is based on a power dynamic" (also true) "and we know BDSM is based on a power dynamic" (true) "so patriarchy must be involved in BDSM somewhere" (wait, stop, back up a bit).I agree with that, and I also wonder whether it might be useful to bring up something this comment makes me think of. Not sure how useful it is or isn't but...
They're leaving out the step of showing that the power dynamic in BDSM bears any significant similarity or common traits to the one in patriarchy. (Possibly they assume that, as an overarching model embedded in our culture, patriarchy must have gotten its meathooks into most power dynamics that exist, but they have to prove that first, and define exactly what the "meathooks" are and how they got attached, etc.).
I have no problem believing that patriarchal assumptions have affected my thoughts about kinky things in some ways...but I seriously doubt it was the sole driving force responsible for their existence.
I also think patriarchy is everywhere, but I'd have to see solid scientific studies before I just assume it's any more "involved" with BDSM than it is in (say) cooking or photography or raising miniature horses.
I'm reminded of reading books like Coming to Power years ago, and noticing several of the folks who contributed to that (who identified as both kinky and feminist) saying stuff like "I think everything in life is shot through with power dynamics. Life itself is a constant interplay of power: of control, of authority, of obedience, of surrender. When I make that part of my life, whether I'm 'playing' with it or doing something else, I'm acknowledging and studying and perhaps even affecting how those many dynamics of power play out."
It makes me think. At the time, I figured that the kinky folk expressing this view (and I'd say in some ways I too am one; I think power relations underlie a whole lot of human interaction at a pretty basic level) saw power as just a part of life, where anti-kink folk saw power dynamics as something sick and twisted overlaid forcibly on some more innocent state of nature.
Now I wonder if that's true. Maybe they agree that power is a part of everything, a part of cooking and dancing and talking and sex, but it's just that they think it's poison, stuffed into everything so we don't know what's natural any more and what isn't. Kind of the way there are preservatives in food.
And that... well, to go back to the commenter's comment, I'm inclined to think patriarchy is that way, stuffed bits at a time into a lot of things we do. And I don't think that's healthy. (But neither do I think aggressive methods to try and purge it work. I don't think corn in everything I eat is good, but I think it would make me crazy to try and eat nothing with corn syrup in it.)
But I'm not sure power is. I'm pretty sure interplays of power just are what they are. Yes, some of them are pernicious, and yes, all of them probably carry some risk. But I tend to think they come with interacting. I'd say "in the way dying comes with living," except that dying is unknown and often painful and scary and usually seen as negative, and I mean something more neutral than that. I mean if you live, they're there.
I can't imagine they wouldn't be in the post-patriarchy, or even in the post-kyriarchy of any kind.
12 comments:
I come at this not only as a (feminist, queer, monogamously bonded) sub but also as someone who reads a lot of the scientific literature on animal behavior, specifically the behavior of social animals. The idea that power is in itself toxic is so scientifically stupid that, as they say, "it's not even wrong." All social animals have to deal with social conflict, and in an environment where resources are limited (that is to say, in any environment), some animals will for whatever reason (physical strength, skill at forming social alliances, sneakiness) have more ability than others to control resources. That's power in a nutshell.
How one deals with the consequences of the existence of power, and of differentials in power -- that's ethics. Patriarchy (Jesus, I hate that word -- it just reeks of Andrea Dworkin) is, you could say, an unethical way of addressing issues of power.
The question of naturalness is also absurd from a scientific point of view. Pretty much all animals have some degree of behavioral flexibility, and the social species tend to be the most behaviorally flexible of all. By definition, if a behavior is in the species repertoire, it's "natural." There is no discussion to be had about that.
We can ask scientific questions about it, of course, such as "How did this behavior get into the evolved repertoire?" But the point is that such questions can be, should be, are asked about any behavior.(We are unlikely to come up with a definitive answer, however, because many or most of our hypotheses won't be testable.)
We can also ask nonscientific questions about behavior, such as "Is this self-destructive?" "Is this ethically okay?" "Does this feel good?" but if the starting point is that science-y attitude that everything is up for questioning, then, once more, we wind up asking those same questions about behavior most people presume to be "normal."
This probably isn't different from what you were saying about the assumptions behind questions like "Why are some people kinky?" I'm just coming at it from my science head, that I want to ask all these questions, but I want to ask them of everything.
I do find kink (and the lack thereof) fascinating as subjects of neurological inquiry. Anecdotally, for instance, I've heard that a lot of people with pain kinks like very spicy food. What an interesting fMRI study that would be -- to learn whether people without pain kinks respond differently to habanero pepper than people with pain kinks do! And whether the response to hot pepper resembles the response to a cane stroke.
You could see it being quite normalizing, oddly enough, since nobody argues that a taste for hot pepper is in any way "abnormal." Heh.
I remember Coming to Power. rocked my world.
Glad to see this blog still getting some activity.
Kinky people will vary widely. Some are on the Libertarian/Anarchist side; others are Goreans; still others are Fem-Domme. Generally the "Anti-Patriarchists" tend to cast the latter as some sort of role-adoption where women become men. Ah, the wonderful ability for ideology to morph people and things at will and convenience. Come to think of it, there are probably aficionados of het couples as either unitized tops or bottoms.
The thing is that with so many things being identified as "Patriarchal" that, if true, it's hard to think of anything - even RadFem as escaping the gravitational pull and reaching escape velocity.
It's more a chaotic system, where all values might come into play. Given the ethos of consent, it's hard to see anyone having total power when the other can simply safe-word out. Then again, if "freedom" is a "patriarchal" concept set in opposition to RadFem "interdependence", anything can be cast as anything at rhetorical convenience - one id forced into a paradigm of power, even if one is removing oneself from power.
My perspective is simply let your kinks be that which works for you and don't tie yourself in knots trying for the One True Path to seuality.
Okay, so for arguments sake let's say that BDSM is based on some power imbalance that is entirely separate to the whole issue of patriarchy. It doesn't change anything. It still seems that BDSM should be condemned because it has a inherent power imbalance.
Why do we condemn the patriarchy if not for the fact that it is a power imbalance? What theoretical footing can feminism have if it is not the rejection of power imbalances?
There is perhaps an out for BDSM in that it is a consensual power imbalance, but so are many other power imbalances that feminists condemn, a 1950s style marriage for example.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across confrontationally, I do not mean to be so. I just feel that there seems to be a fundamental tension between the theoretical framework of feminism and 'kinkyism' that is unresolved.
Funny I found this blog when I am going to leave in a half an hour for a dominatrix interview!
While I agree that Patriarchy CAN play a role in BDSM, it certainly isn't necessary.
Come visit me.
http://ivyandhaley.blogspot.com
Ivy
Sorry if double posted!
RJS-
The difference between the patriarchy that needs to be changed and BDSM is one is an external power structure imposed on individuals by societal forces and one is an internal chosen relational style between individuals.
If one of the stated goals if feminism is allowing people to choose the relational styles they most enjoy, then if both parties enjoy it it's ok.
Plenty of people take the idea of choice to mean "as long as it looks like something I would do you can choose it." Which can make it hard for them to see that different choices are valid, even if they look like a return to "the bad old days"
After all, aren't stay-at-home Mom's voluntarily recreating that 50's household? But some of them do it with hipster pride, and some of them do it with evangelical fervor.
There are people who use BDSM to replay bad scenarios from their lives, there are some who are just crazy people. But that's true of any community.
And why does anyone's sex and love life have to conform to the theoretical framework of feminism?
RJS,
It's been a long time since you commented, so I don't know if you're even here, but:
I don't think feminism is about rejecting power imbalances. I think it is about eradicating ("rejecting" sounds so ivory-tower) unjust ones.
Consensually accepting someone else's authority is not something I see as unjust, so therefore even if I didn't like kink, poking my nose into it would make no sense.
It seems to me that people who share your views really make light of the serious damage that unjust power dynamics do by putting consensual fun on the same footing.
Do you really, really, honestly feel that sexism and racism and ableism and the like are simply distasteful, like you find some forms of sex to be?
I'd say not, but that's what you're claiming when you say things like you did.
actually, I must amend the "eradicating" -- that is of course the goal, but I don't think it's something we can succeed at. Human evil is a powerful enemy.
to rjs
I'm not sure why you think that all "1950s style marriages" (by which I assume you mean a "traditional" marriage in which a woman stays in her husband's home and raises children) are 100% consensual. Some absolutely are, but others are not as consensual as they may appear at first blush. Some women end up in these marriages because it's the only choice available to them, or they face being ostracized by family and friends if they choose differently. I don't see "this is my only choice, so I'll do it" as being the same as "I fully want and consent to this". So I don't think that's a solid analogy to make when discussing BDSM.
Also, agreeing with the above-- a form of sex that you don't personally enjoy/agree with isn't even in the same league as injustice and oppression of people on a society-wide scale.
I think one of the big problems here is that people mix up two different kinds of power.
There's what I call "Ceremonial Power" - calling someone "sir" "master" "Ma'am" even "King" and choosing to obey their orders. Giving them symbols of office etc...
"Real Power" comes from having enough resources and bodily freedom to do what you desire to do (as long as it doesn't interfere with others).
So with my boyfriend - if I need to use his house (to get away from family mostly) it's open to me. We both buy groceries whenever we get money - we don't hold a running tab - no one "owes" anybody anything. We're EQUALS. If he held either of these things over me as a way of extorting anything from me that would be a *real* abuse of power.
He's also my "Sworn Lord". Different issue.
I think this also holds back discussions of socialism. Yes - there might need to be managers and secretaries, but secretaries should have enough resources to have reliable shelter and food, and to be able to go after their goals.
"Why do we condemn the patriarchy if not for the fact that it is a power imbalance? What theoretical footing can feminism have if it is not the rejection of power imbalances?"
A frame of reference I have found useful is the distinction between a "rational and temporary" imbalance of power and an "irrational and permanent" one. For example, as the parent of a child, I held a "rational and temporary" imbalance of power vis-a-vis my daughter which derived from my greater understanding and mastery of many aspects of the environment and my responsibility for getting her safely to the point where her knowledge and mastery allowed her to function independently. It was an imbalance intended to come to an end, a goal for which I bore - in my very power - a great deal of responsibility for achieving. My daughter is now in her late 20s, and we both work hard to weed out the last remnants of that old, once-rational-but-now-outdated imbalance in order to achieve the *balance* of power that is more appropriate to two adults in relationship.
The context in which I learned this way of distinguishing two types of power was that of the therapist-client relationship. As a radical feminist practicing psychotherapy, one of my main concerns was to acknowledge and play my part as one whose experience and expertise placed me in the position of having greater power in a way that guaranteed its "rational and temporary" nature. Everything I did was ultimately in the service of shifting that power balance so that ultimately my client and I would be in a relationship in which our power was equal.
++++++++++++
A second concept which has served me well has been the distinction between "power-over" and "power-as-personal-potency." Patriarch only has one concept of power; it is synonymous with "domination," or "power-over." Feminism (re-)introduces another form of power, that of "potency," which does not require the subservience of another in order to exist. When the personal power/potency of all parties is a 'given,' then an exploration of power-as-domination, it seems to me, can have an entirely new reality.
hi all
http://www.tor.com/community/users/flagathalear1982
http://www.tor.com/community/users/solfelatools1984
http://www.tor.com/community/users/dustgevacons1970
http://www.tor.com/community/users/bircirebu1986
http://www.tor.com/community/users/proffinmimi1974
Post a Comment