It was recently brought to my attention that Deborah Spar, Barnard’s president, wrote a response to Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article, “Why Women Can’t Have It All”. Spar brought up the point that women should continue to let their ambitions breathe instead of stepping away too soon from the table, as has coined it Sheryl Sandberg, or give up their ambitions before even entering the game out of dread for being unable to have it all and for the anticipated guilt linked to juggling so much. Spar argues that women deserve to be boosted in their ambitions rather than focus on the perils along the way.
I agree heartily that every individual should have his or her ambitions and be able to pursue them as an individual, his or her own “way”.
However, I can’t help but notice that, once again, the heavy lot of pursuing one’s ambitions in a somewhat hostile environment is conceptualized as an individual’s plight only: to make it there where few arrive, at the highest rung, no matter the personal sacrifice, and to make it there alone.
It has often been remarked that the woman’s movement allowed for women to enter the workforce… but only according to men’s conditions and rules; that somehow “she” had to be “a man plus some” to make inroads at all. And while some women are changing the rules and gaining in clout (remember recent laments of “if only it had been Lehman sisters”), much of this world remains a man’s world. Within it, individuals’ quest for selfhood and self-fulfillment has obeyed, and continues to obey, the andocentric “hero myth” in which the individual strikes out against all peril (albeit with many helping, expendable hands), kills/seduces the evil woman, all in order to achieve the ultimate prize or goal. In this hero myth, the individual plays a linear, solitary, all-or-nothing game of singular purpose. Modern women have taken on this myth for themselves, relieved to finely be free to pursue this hero myth from which they were entirely excluded for so long.
The problem with this worldview is twofold. First of all, such a singular purpose is not pertinent to many women (or men). Second, much must be improved collectively, instead of condemning individual ambitions to being such a solitary struggle.
1. A singular purpose is incomplete for many
The hero-myth requires the hero-to-be to reduce his/her life to a single dimensional outlook.
Yet, human reality and potential are far richer than that. We are similar to quarks and could gain much by accepting that we are highly sophisticated, multi-dimensional, beings capable of embodying simultaneously multiple purposes and needs. The tacit societal agreement to limit ourselves to linear paths (with a positive slope) and to singularity of being is neither necessary nor preferable.
Yet, in the meantime, this worldview has led us down the slippery slope of exclusion. How can it be that we are actually letting ourselves be convinced collectively that only 2 models exist: having children or having a career… and that any alternative is symptomatic of inadequacy or symbol of infidelity (not engaged enough as a mother or not engaged enough as an employee). How can it be that learned, insightful, thoughtful thinkers can follow a track that makes total abstraction of having children, a kind of Brave New World in which some will carry babies and others will think and act, dissociating entirely the stuff of life and some nebulous imperative of “ambitions”?
I’ve mentioned it in a past blog but I think the idea has not received the attention it deserves: Kathryn Ann Rabuzzi wrote, back in the 1980s, about the need for a new myth: the Motherself. For men and for women. It doesn’t mean having children nor does it mean giving oneself entirely to children. It means erecting a model that is less solitary, less linear, less individualistic, and less uni-dimensional than our current hero-myth. It means embodying more than one ambition (personal and professional); it means having a purpose that leaves room for others with us instead of making it a solo zero-sum game in which the winner takes all. But, above all, it means society deciding to accept that quality of life nourishes quality of work; that productivity and performance will increase if and only if we allow each individual’s multi-dimensionality to bloom.
However, this is unlikely to happen as long as we shackle individuals’ challenges exclusively to individuals’ gains, which leads me to my second objection to nurturing the hero-myth perspective:
2. Much can be improved collectively allowing individual ambitions to be less of a solitary struggle.
In the midst of our performance society that so values domination, power and wealth (of an individual or dynasty), we are afraid of building with others lest it puts us at a disadvantage or doesn’t milk our own individual/familial achievements fully enough. There are plenty of stories of parents writing their kids’ school papers or cheating to help their kids get ahead. There are the voucher schools that weed the best&ambitious into one school, leaving the under-financed and under-privileged in another. And so on and so forth. This isn’t to point fingers. This is to illustrate that we are all falling into the game of “I, against the world”. And that, in our fall, we are losing hold of the sense of community a society requires and in which it’s a game of “I, empowered with the world”.
As a consequence, women’s ascension to meeting their ambitions are beholden to a solitary, zero-sum game (like the hero-myth but with even more demons to be beheaded than for a man). It is often mentioned that women do not display the kind of solidarity that the “old boy’s network” has, and that oftentimes women are competitive with each other rather than helpful (or even simply empathetic)! But it doesn’t need to be that way.
In each of my posts since last November, I have made the same plea: in this 21st century, it is time we, collectively, revalued family, intergenerationalism, interdependence. We must revalue the collective, the constructive. Pull away from the individualistic nuclear family and build our society, community. Not like in a religion that dulls each voice to create unison but a community with humanist values that orchestrates a symphony or jazz session.
Let’s face it: it’s for false and contrived reasons that children be exclusively considered of negative value for a woman executive. And there’s no reason every single woman must reinvent the wheel or take on singlehandedly every battle in tow in order to pursue her ambitions. It is time that we foster a more spherical, holistic life scheme. We must stop valuing only individualistic short-term performance and pursue sustainable development for people and communities.
What does it mean “sustainable development for people and communities” and what are the steps to get there?
And what does it mean concretely to shift from the hero-myth to the motherself-myth?
Now that performance seems to have trumped living, making us lose touch with much of the richness inherent in our humanity, we are increasingly losing our liberty and our control over our own lives.
How can we, as a community, reclaim our many forgotten strengths to positively shape this new century into a beacon of light and a springboard for progress for all of us, not just the elite?
These are the issues I will be exploring over this new academic year. Join the debate with me and let’s make this world the way we want it to be.
Talk to you next week,
Eve
No comments:
Post a Comment