I was in DC last weekend, visiting the nation's capitol and other things. My lovely tour guide took me through two of the House Office Buildings, the Capitol building, and around other bits of the city. It was all very pretty, but after my visit to Rome last month, I couldn't help but notice that a fair share of the architecture is decidedly fascist, in the style of Mussolini's constructions. Huge slabs of smoot gray stone rising out of the ground with angular edges and harsh columns. Ferociously stylized statues and reliefs of symbolic figures of power (eagles, men with swords, etc.). The similarities are really striking.
It makes sense, I guess. The purpose of Fascist architecture is to convey the immense power of The State, its monolithic ability to crush you and its inherent right to everything you have. Washington basically does the same thing, but I suppose its architecture is more revealing than its rhetoric. When you go to DC, you don't see the seat of a nation of the people, by the people, for the people; you see a collection of stern white and gray buildings crawling with armed guards who inspect you and bureaucratize you before you even walk in the door. If I were a crazy libertarian, this stuff would probably scare me, but because I'm sympathetic to the idea of a centralized federal aristocracy, I'm generally OK.
Still, they must have known about the Fascist thing. Mussolini's Rome was built largely in the 20s, and I'm pretty sure that most of modern Washington was constructed after that. I guess if you want to send a message, you aren't going to let a few negative connotations of authoritarian dictatorship get in your way.
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Fight the power, or don't.
The pus-filled sore of women and Union leadership has now been scratched by many, so I figure it's my turn to take a stab at it.
There appear to be a number of questions at hand. A few of them are:
1. Do women and men have different roles/purposes in leadership?
2. If so, is this appropriate?
3. What should the Union do about this?
etc.
Are women being relegated to weak administrative positions instead of being allowed to develop intellectually? I say no. There are many very fine female speakers in the Union, just as there are many fine female administrators in the Union. Indeed, they are often the same people. The former President, Ms. Homer, was a fine example. As is the former speaker, Ms. Rittelmeyer. As is the current speaker, Ms. Lee. There are plenty of other examples. Does this mean that the Union is not inherently structured as a masculine-styled "old boys club?" Not at all. In the sense that it is most commonly meant, the Union and its agressive style of debate and socialization is exceedingly masculine. What these and other women have shown is that an organization's "masculinity" does not mean that it is impenetrable to women.
Ah, but as Kate says, the real power lies in the parties. While I would dispute her on this point alone (the past election cycle has indicated to me that there is clearly ideology and inspiration in Union leadership), I will go down her path. In the past two semesters alone, during my time at Yale (and hers), there have been six female chairmen of parties. Out of 14, that isn't bad, especially considering the male majority in the membership. Were these women inspirational leaders? I think their parties would say so. Kate's party, the Party of the Right, which has not had a female chairman since the fall of 2006, has its own roadblocks to overcome (or not, if it so chooses). But this is indicative not of a general failure of the Union system, or even of women as a gender to fulfill the dominant role in an organization.
It seems that there are a number of people, regardless of gender, who seek leadership roles for whatever reason, and fight until they assume them. Some have a harder time than others, either because of personal or environmental setbacks. But I would add that we have the great fortune of residing in a microcosm of privilege where practically everything is voluntary. If you choose to take part in a system that keeps you down, be prepared to fight harder or accept your assigned role. While the world may be big and bad, Yale is small and pretty, and your narrative is one that you have a part in writing, if there is a narrative at all.
Leadership is a trait, or perhaps a number of traits. Some women possess it, others do not. Some men possess it, others do not. Associating this trait with the realm of masculinity may be informative, but it is not a rule. At this point, I am willing to say that gender roles exist as an anthropological observation, but not as a cultural imperative.
And so I say to the postmodern world: know the power structure. Learn it. Embrace it, reject it, do with it as you will. But if you feel nurturing, nurture. If you feel dominant, dominate. Only the reactionary nature of the culture you embrace, coupled with your own self-doubt might hold you back. For the rest of us, we will live the world as we see it, honoring the victors and forgetting the weak.
There appear to be a number of questions at hand. A few of them are:
1. Do women and men have different roles/purposes in leadership?
2. If so, is this appropriate?
3. What should the Union do about this?
etc.
Are women being relegated to weak administrative positions instead of being allowed to develop intellectually? I say no. There are many very fine female speakers in the Union, just as there are many fine female administrators in the Union. Indeed, they are often the same people. The former President, Ms. Homer, was a fine example. As is the former speaker, Ms. Rittelmeyer. As is the current speaker, Ms. Lee. There are plenty of other examples. Does this mean that the Union is not inherently structured as a masculine-styled "old boys club?" Not at all. In the sense that it is most commonly meant, the Union and its agressive style of debate and socialization is exceedingly masculine. What these and other women have shown is that an organization's "masculinity" does not mean that it is impenetrable to women.
Ah, but as Kate says, the real power lies in the parties. While I would dispute her on this point alone (the past election cycle has indicated to me that there is clearly ideology and inspiration in Union leadership), I will go down her path. In the past two semesters alone, during my time at Yale (and hers), there have been six female chairmen of parties. Out of 14, that isn't bad, especially considering the male majority in the membership. Were these women inspirational leaders? I think their parties would say so. Kate's party, the Party of the Right, which has not had a female chairman since the fall of 2006, has its own roadblocks to overcome (or not, if it so chooses). But this is indicative not of a general failure of the Union system, or even of women as a gender to fulfill the dominant role in an organization.
It seems that there are a number of people, regardless of gender, who seek leadership roles for whatever reason, and fight until they assume them. Some have a harder time than others, either because of personal or environmental setbacks. But I would add that we have the great fortune of residing in a microcosm of privilege where practically everything is voluntary. If you choose to take part in a system that keeps you down, be prepared to fight harder or accept your assigned role. While the world may be big and bad, Yale is small and pretty, and your narrative is one that you have a part in writing, if there is a narrative at all.
Leadership is a trait, or perhaps a number of traits. Some women possess it, others do not. Some men possess it, others do not. Associating this trait with the realm of masculinity may be informative, but it is not a rule. At this point, I am willing to say that gender roles exist as an anthropological observation, but not as a cultural imperative.
And so I say to the postmodern world: know the power structure. Learn it. Embrace it, reject it, do with it as you will. But if you feel nurturing, nurture. If you feel dominant, dominate. Only the reactionary nature of the culture you embrace, coupled with your own self-doubt might hold you back. For the rest of us, we will live the world as we see it, honoring the victors and forgetting the weak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)