"Sahana bhabatu sanau
bhunaktu ,sahabitya karaba bahi tejasshwina bdhita mastu mabiddusa bahai "
.
(Isopanisad firat stanga ) .
“Public and Private are imbedded within a
dense web of associational meanings and intimations and linked to other basic
notions: nature and culture, male and female…The content, meaning, and range of
public and private vary with the exigencies of each society’s existence and
turn on whether the virtues of political life or the values of private life are
rich and vital or have been drained, singly or together, of their normative
significance.”( )
The
mantra of second wave feminism, “the personal id political,” signifies the
first attempt to break sown the gendered division between the private sphere
attributed to women and the public sphere of men. There is no clear origin of
this public/private division; it could have been. As Germaine Greer humorously
suggests, “while the male-hunter-gatherer strolled along burdened with no more
that his spear and a throwing stick, his female mate trudged along after him
carrying their infant, their shelter, their food supplies and her digging
stick.” It appears that, from the moment of human interaction and language, and
its implicit category making of social divisions, women have always been
associated with the private, and men with the public.
From
the beginning of first wave feminism and the flight for women’s suffrage, women
have been using politics to enter the public realm of men, thus challenging the
stark division between public man and private woman. A goal of the feminist
movement has been to create equality between the sexes, both in the public and
private spheres of life. In doing so, the gendered spaces of men and women have
become blurred and, because of the linkage between public/private and
man/woman, respectively, the division between private and public has also
become unclear.
The
deconstruction of the public/private binary has several implications. It has
politicized women’s voice in a way that has disrupted the unity of women.
Second, the concerns of private life are now exposed to the public, allowing
for public and political influence on the private life, specifically in the
form of legislation. Thirds, the deconstruction of the public/private threatens
the individuality of experiences of women as women. Finally, it jeopardizes the
sanctity of the private space. By looking at different models for gender
equality within the private and public spaces we can begin to find s way in
these spaces can be reconstructed to achieve a gendered equality while still
preserving the public/private divide and the integrity and individuality of men
and women.
As
more women have entered the work force, and thus the public sphere, there has
been an increasing focus on how this movement influences the idea of the
traditional private life. Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, men have been defined as the money-making
workers and women as the child-bearing emotions support for men. In this traditions
model “the ability of the unencumbered individual (man) to participate in the
public sphere of work and politics assumes that someone, usually a woman, is
preparing his food, cleaning his house, and raising the next generation of laborers
through her reproductive labor.” The expectation that child care will be done
‘for free’ by the mother in the home is connected to the lack f publicly funded
day care that would enable women to work outside the home as well as the
underpaid nature of child care labor. In the same vein, the devaluation of
child care and the work of nurturing also serve to undervalue the work
performed by women in the labor market, the traditional model is challenged. To
compensate for this, the division between private and public is being refined.
The
shifting division between the public and private spheres results in an unclear distinction
between the two, and the manner by which this division is refined is connected
to the state. In the course of history, women’s voices have been silenced in
the public arena. This silencing is due significantly to that which defines
them as women and to hich they are inescapably linked: their sexuality, their
natality, and their body. These three things helped situated women in the
private realm. Linked with public/private is the political/apolitical dichotomy
which closes women into an experience of the apolitical private, consequently
overlooking women’s distinctive experiences in politics. To combat this,
women’s voices have entered the political realm to protest for legislation that
addresses the structural oppression they experience as women because of their
association with private. Women have been the primary proponents to the
creation of better child care, better paid maternity and paternity leave, and
equal pay in all occupational fields; all things that push the feminist agenda
of equality for the sexes. Unfortunately, in politics, women’s concerns and
demands are regarded as reflections of moral or familial commitment, rather
than an authentically political stance. Their issues are deemed “women’s
issues,” thereby trivializing the issues. In doing so, these issues become
“women’s problems” and can be more easily bypassed by the male-dominated
political system. In truth, however, these initiatives are to work to balance
by the male-dominated political system. In truth, however, these initiatives
are to work to balance the public and private lives of everyone, so that the
shift between private and public can be stabilized.
The
politicization of women’s voices had dual function. In part, it perpetuates the
male/female dichotomy by creating gendered spaces within the public realm by
creating “women’s issues” as a political agenda, which rests outside mainstream
(male) politics. At the same time, it causes women to adopt masculinized voices
to be taken seriously within mainstay\ream politics. In the discussing of
politics, their female perspective cannot be brought into their argument,
because if it is, the argument will be devalued. If their prospective is not
female and is presented in the make dominated steeling of politics, it is
likely that they will present their ideas from a male perspective, so that
people who are being presented to (males) can identify with what the woman is
saying.
The
masculinization of women occurs in all public areas, including the work force.
To be taken as serious workers, women must dress in a masculine manner, cannot
mention the existence of their children and can never leave work to address
familial responsibilities. This creates a double edge sword for working
mothers; socioeconomic structures reinforce women’s primary responsibility for
day care while gender-natural family laws tend not to acknowledge the
continuing nature of care giving. Women are increasingly expected to work what
Arlie Hoch child has names “the second shift”.
The
division between the masculinized women’s voices and the women’s voices
advocating for “wmen’s issues” causes a rift between women that makes it harder
for equality to be accomplished. When women adopt the masculinized manner in
their public persona, they are working to uphold the gendered divisions of
public and private. However, if they do not adopt a masculine style in the work
force, it becomes increasingly difficult to succeed. Without success of women
in the work force, women will remain contained In the private. On the other
hand, if women’s voices are divided along gender lines, there is no way to
create a unitary women’s voice to push for social and political changes that
will create a gendered equality in the public and private spheres.
For
a long time politics has rested in the public realm ; the private realm was a
place to escape from politics. Frances Olsen derives the connection: “Just as
family was once seen as the repository for values being destroyed in the
marketplace, the family may also be seen as the sanctuary of privacy into which
one can retreat to avoid state regulation.” So it follows that “the ideology of
the public/private dichotomy allows government to clean its hands of any
responsibility for the state of the ‘private’ world and depoliticizes the
disadvantages which inevitably spill over the alleged divide by affecting the
positions of the ‘privately’ disadvantaged in the ‘public’ world.
Taken
together, the family is viewed as a ‘haven in a heartless world’ that should be
protected from the scrutiny by the state and law. These societal ideas, based
on the binary public/ private division, make it difficult to argue for
legislation of things that appear to be in the private realm.
It
is slowly being recognized that the public and private are not in opposition to
one another, but are in reciprocal connection with one another. There have been
political efforts, through legislation, to rectify the gender differences of
the public sphere. Major initiatives have been taken to rid law and social
policy of assumptions based on stereotypical images of women as economically
dependent wives and mothers. Parental leave and other legal policy changes are
in place in encourage men to participate in the parenting of children. Despite
the efforts to ensure equality for women, promoting the sharing of familial
responsibilities by women and men, and enchancing women’s position in the labor
force, gender inequalities still persist.
One
piece of legislation that is highly contended, and has great influence on the
public/private debate, is that of legal abortions. The topic of abortion
approaches the public/private division and deconstruction in two ways. First,
it approaches the public/private debate socially, looking at its influence on
the public man/private woman dichotomy and its incluence on the oppression and
automony of women within the public sphere. Second, it speaks to the political
and legislative division of what is considered public and private territory,
and the extent to which legislation can regulate the private.
Abortion,
as it situated in society today, acts both as a tool of liberation and of
oppression for women. Without the right to choose whether or not to have an
abortion, women would be forced into the private domain as mothers, unable to
enter the public realm and gain equality with men. On the other hand, the right
ot abortion serves to bypass the greater issues of female oppressionintrinsic
int eh make-dominated public sphere, such as the lack of support for women as
mothers within our society.
Abortion
in integral to a women’s right to sovereignty. It derives from the equality
doctrine that, at its core, requires people be treated with equal respect, and
from that should be equally treated and cared for by society. If forced into
pregnancy because the lack of sage, legal abortions, woman would be denied
access to the benefits procided to those in the public realm. Once a woman
becomes a mother, her resources to education, employment, and health care
become severely limited. Compulsory pregnancy laws violate the traditional
American ideals of individual rights and freedoms Without the right to abortion,
women’s access to the public woulkd be restricted.
Conversely,
abortion also acts a mechanism used by patriarchal culture to keep women in
submission by not adapting its structure to encompass mothers. With abortion,
women’s equality is still bades in a male- dominated public sphere whose
legislation favors men and discriminates against mothers. To be on an equal
level politically, socially and economically, women cannot become pregnant.
Women must adopt the characteristics of men in order to be equal.
Despite
the contradictory affects of the position od women within the public/private
debate over abortion, the idea of equality insists that women be allowed to
choose to have abortions because of women’s position in society and the roles
and responsibilities of women from the submissive private life to gain control
offered by the public life. With autonomous power, women then might be able to
begin to change the structures of the public and private to encompass gender
equality.
The
right to abortion is deeply situated in discussion over public legislative jurisdiction
over the private actions. As discussed earlier, women’s lives and women’s
issues have tended to be relegated to a separate, private sphere that is
considered immune from regulation. The private realm is described as a ‘haven’
from the injustices of the public realm. Privacy is viewed as a fundamental
ritght and “can be interpreted as being involved in a range of constitutional
and moral issues – freedom from surveillance and searches, reproductive
freedom, freedom to associate, confidentiality of communications, and family
values.” To many people, though, the private sphere is not necessarily a safe
haven. Ot os a place that can harbor physical and emotional abuse, and without
regulation of these things, the injustice in the private sphere could go on to
hurt many. In accordance, the privacy of home could be utilized to mask the
production of drugs, bombs, and so on that may threaten the welkl being of
other humans.
The
regulation of things within the private is precarious, because “by its very terminology
– privacy – the doctrine suggests at its core that it is plausible to divide
the world into two spheres: the public and the private. The presupposition is
that privacy should be protected because private acts do not affect public
life.” On the contrary, the public and private are deeply interconnected
spheres and do affect one another greatly. Some privacy must be forfeited to
gain protection from potential harm that may occur in the private sphere. There
may be laws intact top deal with the consequences of harm that may occur in the
private sphere. There must be laws intact to deal with the consequences of harm
that take place in private.
In
Row V. Wade the Supreme Court found that the right of privacy “was enough to
encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy,”
creating a precarious position for abortion in relation to privacy. It deals
with the existence od two bodies in one, and the choice to undergo abortion
influences the well-being of both. In the cut and dry definition above, privacy
should be regulated when it somes to affecting the public sphere. The decision
that women make about how to use their reproductive capacities profoundly
affect our society, and the decisions that the state makes with regard to
reproductive health policies profoundly affect that lives of women. Abortion,m
therefore, is not solely in the private realm. However, with that argument and
the control over a woman’s own body can be from the public realm , it becomes
quite difficult to define the limits of public control over the private domain.
Abortion
is only one of the many pieces of legislature that aids in distorting the
division between private and public. While there have been many positive
advances through legislature and social change for the equality of women
created by their entrance into the public realm, there are also some
disadvantages. Women have had to sacrifice their womanhood and adopt a
masculine attitude to succeed in the work environment. In the deconstruction of
the public/private division, the individuality of the experiences of women as
women is threatened.
In
Three guineas, Virginia Woolf addressed unique experiences of women that are
lost whem women join the causes of man. Woolf sees tha division of man and
women not along the lines of public and private spheres, but as members to two
different societies. Unlike most feminist ideas of integration of men and women
within the public sphere, Woolf argues for the creation of a separate society
for women that works in conjunction with but separately from the society that
has previously been created by men. She reasons “…it seems both wrong for us
rationally and impossible for us emotionally to fill up your form and join your
society. For by doing so we should merge our identity with yours; follow and
repeat and score still deeper the old warn ruts in which society, like a
gramphone whose needle is stunk, {that} is grinding out with intolerable
unanimity…”
By
joining the male society, Woolf predicts that the presence of women would not
act to transform it to encompass women, but instead merge their identity with
it and lose their individuality. This, in fact, is what we have seen happen.
Women are losing the their feminine characteristics and adopting masculine ones
to successful in society, in turn losing their individuality as women.
Woolf
writes about the creation of an “outsiders’Society.” This name “has the
advantage that it squares with the facts- the facts of history, of law, of
biography; even, it may be, with the hidden facts of our still unknown
psychology,” which support the devaluation and exploitation women. Thee are few
good reasons for women to try to join a support the devaluation and
exploitation women. There are few good reasons for women to try to join a society
which has consistently ignored them. In the sixty-six years since Three Guineas
was published, very little has changed. On a whole, women have been subjugated
by men in society. Women have been forced, through social structures and
attitudes, to remain in the private. When they have entered the public sphere,
it is under men’s direction and jurisdiction, forcing women to lose their
femininity and replace it with masculinity. To keep the individualized
experiences of women, women today must form a separate society to Woolf’s
Z”Outsider’s Society.” This society could essentially push for the equality of
women within the public sphere that encompasses both the societies of men and
women, while maintaining the individualized experiences of women.
The
deoncstruction of the public/private divide is not causinf the loss of the
individuality and uniqueness of the female experience, but it is also
threatening the sancity of the private space. The private space is being
destroyued because of its intrinsic association with the oppression of females,
but as it is being destroyed, the benefits of private space are also being
ruined. Both the public and private realms have morally associated
characteristics with them. The public moral evaluation – duty, justice, right,
equality, liberty, legitimacy, resistance – is counterbalanced by the private
moral sentiment and emotion – affection, responsibility, love, mercy,
compassion, decency, kindness.
Associated
with the private sphere is intimacy; with the public sphere is detachment and
coldness. The private sphere is a place that a person can escape from the
impersonal public sphere. Privacy “allows us to do things we would not do in
public, to experiment, to engage in self-relfection; it protects us from
majoritarian pressuresl it allows us to control who we will have access to
ourselves and to information about ourselves, and to make decisions that
critically affect our lives.” It is not intended to secure separation from
social pressure, but to assist social involvements and intimacy.
As
the line between private and public dissolves, te private haven that procures
love, trust and compassion does so as well. It must be sddressed that the
private does not necessarily provide thishaven; ofr some the private harbors
fear of the injustices that can be committed under the radar of the system.
However, if the private is fully abolished, the autonomy of individuals will be
lost. Privacy is a way of affirming the “centrality of uncoerced individual
decision-making in important areas of human activity.” If the private space is
completely lost in this blurring between public and private, the sacredness as
individuals will be lost along with it.
Thus
far, two models have been presented for the way to regulate the public/privetr
divide. The first model is the model that is the moder that is currently deing
enacted in modern day American society. On this model, women are thrusting
themselves into the public sphere and are determined to gain equality.
Unfortunately, this approach is haphazard and separated with some women
adopting masculine characteristics to succeed while others are struggling to
succeed while maintaining their femininity.
Woolf’s
“outside’s Society” is the second of these two models. In this version of
approaching the public/private debate. Woolf suggests creating a separate
society for women; a society that exists both in the public and private realms
bit exists separately from the society of men. Since “Outsider’s Society” will
be comprised solely of women, it can respond to the needs and individualities
of women, reserving their uniqueness.
Neither
of these two models truly encompasses one of the major goals of contemporary
feminism: to create a gender equality both in the private and public. This
equality is an equality that encompasses the individualities of all genders
indtead of forcing all genders instead of forcing all genders to adopt the
stereotypical characteristics of men to succeed in the public, or the stereotypical
characteristics of women to do the private. The achievement of this equality is
not judt to create equality within the public sphere of work and politics, but
to engage people of all genders in every aspect of life. Working towards
gendered equality will facilitate in the degendering of the areas of public and
private without collapsing the divide.
To
begin to achieve this goal of gendered equality, there is “a call for retaining
but recasting the public and private boundaries as part of an effort to
preserve each yet reach towards an ideal of social reconstruction.” By taking
part of Woolf’s argument and looking outside the dominant society, not within,
can justice and equality and liberty for all men and women begin to be
achieved. In order to reconstruct the public/private in a gendered equality,
first a deconstruction the market/family and state/family aspects of the
public/private must take place. This does not mean that there is a need to
destroy the line between he public and private totally, but the need to
redefine this line in a background of equality.
The
reconstruction of the public/private divide along the lines of gendered
equality is an undeniably prodigious ambition, but having a final aspiration
and ideal will aid in directing the change that is needed. This change must not
be forced in the form of legislation, though legislation does help in shaping
social attitudes, but must be completely embodied by individuals to facilitate
in the social change needed to achieve gendered equality. Slowly, through small
refinements of the public and private, this gendered equality will hopefully
become the effective reality.
Bibliography
Boiling, patricia. Privacy and
the policy of Intimate Life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996.
Boyd, Susan B. “challenging the
public/Private divide: An overview.”Challenging the public/private divide:
Feminism, Law, and public policy. Ed. Susan B. Boyd. Toronto, Canada:
University of Totonto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1997.3-33.
Colker, Ruth aborfion &
Dialoue. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Public man,
PrivateWoman in social and politicalThought Princeton, NJ PrincatonUniversity,
1981.
Greer, Germaine, The ehole woman.
Alfred A. Knoopf
Hochschild, Arlie R. The second
Shift, London, England : Penguin Books, 1989.
McClain, Linda C. “Equality,
Oppression, and Abortion: Women Who Oppose Abortion rights in the Name of
feminism. “Feminist Nightmares: Women at Odds, Feminism and the problem of
Sisterhood. Ed. Susan Ostrov Weisser and Jennifer Fleishner. New York
University Press, 1994.159*168
Regan, Priscilla M. Legislating
Privacy : Technology, Social Values a, and private policy, chapel hill, NC. The
University of North Carolina Press 1995.
Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113(1973)
Sitanen, Janet and Michelle
stanworth. “ The politics of pricate woman and public man.” Woman and the
public sphere. Eds. Janet siltanen and Michelle stanwirth. New York, NY : St.
Martin’s Press, 1984. 185-208
Woolf, Virginia. Three Guineas.
New York, NY: Harcourt, Inc., 1938
Young Iris. “Presidential Embodiment.”
Body and FLesh: A philosophical Reader, Ed. Donn Welton, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers ltd, 1998. 274-290
0 comments: