|
COPYRIGHT 2003 Bridgewater State College
Abstract
In this article I use Swirski's book (1) as a sounding board for a theoretical discussion about issues of marginality and gender in Israeli society. My aim is to discuss a number of issues connected with gender blindness that are prevalent in sociological studies about Israeli society. Namely: (1) What is the sociological manifestation of the phenomenon referred to as gender blindness? (2) Why is it that women are often excluded in theoretical analysis? (3) Why is it that women are marginalized either intentionally or accidentally? (4) What are the causes of women's invisibility? I explain why Marxist analysis of the ineptness of Mizrahim fails to capture the specific reasons why Mizrahi women are discriminated and oppressed.
Key Words: Ineptness, Gender blindness, Mizrahi women, Affirmative action
**********
This article began life as a lecture at a conference that celebrated the 20th anniversary of the publication of Shlomo Swirski's book Lo Nechshalim Ela Menuchshalim: Nituah Sociology Vesihot Im Pe "eilim Upe "eilot (literal translation--Not Naturally Inept But Socialized to be Inept: A sociological Analysis and Discussions with Social Activists Both Men and Women) (1). The publication of this book was a landmark in the history of Israeli Sociology in that in it Swirski put forward an interpretation and analysis of Israeli society that contradicted that which was put forward by those who belong to the Israeli sociological establishment (2). Until Swirski Israeli sociologists attempted to explain the ineptness and lack of success of the Mizrahim (3) in Israeli society as being a direct result of their coming from Arab and Muslim countries. In his book Swirski offered a Marxist class analysis of their situation and showed that their so-called ineptness was a direct result of institutional arrangements and discriminatory policies. In doing this Swirski was the first sociologist to give expression to the Mizrahi view of their own situation that had previously been ignored (4) Swirski, the sociologist and the man, is concerned with many marginalized groups in the Israeli state. This shows itself not only in his academic work but also in the social action in which he is engaged. Swirski has been active in the initiation of many social projects amongst which was the foundation of the Kedma School (in which I also had the honor to participate). This school was founded to teach children that the national educational system had given up on. In the Kedma School many did, what they did not do, in their previous schools--learn--and many of them also excelled in their learning.
In this article I shall use Swirski's book as a sounding board for a theoretical discussion about issues of marginality and gender in Israeli society. The first thing I want to do is to draw your attention to the subtitle of Swirski's book. There he writes about both male and female activists. (In Hebrew, unlike in English, there is a different word for activists of each gender). This shows that when the book was published in 1981, that Swirski was sensitive to gender issues even though then it was not the politically correct thing to do so. Swirski displays this gender sensitivity throughout his book in that he never simply talks about for example, physicians and teachers but about male physicians and female physicians and male teachers and female teachers. However, with all this gender sensitivity Swirski failed in his explanation of the so-called ineptness of Mizrahim, to distinguish Mizrahi women from Mizrahi men. This is so even though in his book he discussed occupations and professions where most of the workers are Mizrahi women. It is clear that he seems to believe that his analysis and explanation of the ineptness of Mizrahi men applies equally to Mizrahi women. This to me is a shortcoming of Swirski's analysis in that it exhibits what feminist theorists refer to as 'gender blindness'.
My aim, in what follows, is to discuss a number of issues connected with gender blindness that are prevalent in sociological studies about Israeli society. Namely: (1) what is the sociological manifestation of the phenomenon referred to as gender blindness? (2) Why is it that women are often excluded in theoretical analysis? (3) Why is it that women are marginalized either intentionally or accidentally? (4) What are the causes of women's invisibility and transparency?
I draw attention immediately to the fact that in the previous paragraph I have used a number of different words such as 'invisibility', 'blindness', exclusion' and 'marginalization' that are often not distinguished. This to me is a mistake. For example when an invisible group is discriminated against, than those discriminating against it are unaware that they are engaged in discriminating against that group because they are unaware of the existence of the group as an identifiable group. The use of the word 'exclusion' implies an active form of discrimination--a form of discrimination that can only be practiced by people who can identify and recognize as members of the group the people they wish to exclude from participating in some activity or receiving some benefit. Failure to note what is implied by the uses of these different words will lead to a failure not only to understand the phenomenon being analyzed but also to identify and describe it correctly. For example, the Israeli establishment discriminates against both Arab citizens of the state of Israel and foreign workers in Israel. However, the causes for their discrimination are different in the sense that the Israeli establishment is 'officially' blind to the plight of the foreign workers while it discriminates against Israeli Arabs by actively excluding them from enjoying many opportunities and rights that are open to Jewish citizens of the state of Israel. In other words while it makes sense to talk about the marginalization of Israeli Arabs being a result of policy of exclusion this is not so with regard to the foreign workers whose invisibility is a direct result of that they are officially blind to Israeli policy makers. Uses of these words also has important theoretical implications as the different words imply both different political and sociological circumstances, and so different social positions of the groups one is using these words to talk about. In his book Swirski correctly draws attention to the underclass position of Mizrahim as well as to their low economic and social status; but he fails to draw attention to their identity as Orientals which is what distinguishes them from Jews of European and American origins. Similarly he also excludes from his analysis factors pertaining to gender. In this sense Swirski failed in his analysis to see and understand the special plight of Mizrahi women in Israel, and so with regard to this issue, his book was no different than that written by most members of the Israeli sociological establishment. Some of the clues for understanding the causes for the gender blindness of Swirski and other Israeli sociologists can be found in the writings of feminist theorists. And so what I do in this article is to use ideas of some feminist theorist in order to uncover the gender blindness that Swirski exhibits in his book. My focus in this essay is not the feminist ideas themselves--and so I do not engage in a critical discussion of them and I am very brief in my explanation of them (5). My aim is to use these ideas to uncover the gender blindness of an extremely good sociological theorist whose work I greatly admire.
Diane Coole, in her book Women in Political Theory (6), gives us a perceptive analysis of the nature of women's invisibility in classical political theory. She shows that the universalistic mode of expression that is commonly found in the classical works of political philosophy contributes to rendering women invisible. Coole shows that in books like John Locke's Second Treatise on Government in which he claims that "all men are born equal" and in doing so he presumes and is presumed to be using the word 'men' to also bespeaking about women, where in point of fact, he excludes them. She argues that although the abstract use of the word 'men' is meant to include women, and may even do so as it concerns their entitlements for rights, for Locke, women as women remain transparent. She claims this because she identifies in Locke's writings specific references to women that show that they and their special needs are invisible to him. Locke, like other classical political theorists such as Mill, Hegel and Marx does not refer to women in an abstract and transparent way when he is talking about issues that are related to the gender division of labor.
Mill for example in his essay on The Subjection Of Women (7) underlines women's social roles as to bear children and as being the 'axle' around which the family turns. While Mill is in favor of improving the situation of women in relationship to that of men, and supports the idea that they should enjoy the same rights as do men, including the rights to be educated and the right to own property as well as the right to vote, he fails to explain how they can practically do so while still being responsible for their roles in the private sphere of running the household and bringing up the children. For women to enjoy rights in the public sphere they need to be able to play roles in the public sphere. As to how they are supposed to perform these roles while still being responsible for bringing up children and running the household, Mill is silent. Hence, while Mill does not theoretically limit women to the private sphere and claims that they are entitled to the rights that can be enjoyed by men in the public sphere, he also makes it clear, they can legitimately enjoy these rights only if they do not neglect their responsibilities to their children, their family and their household. Then again while Mill claims that women are responsible for the private sphere of the household, it is also clear that even for him it is still the men who are ultimately in control of it. Many consider Mill to be the founding father of feminist liberalism because he claimed that women should not be excluded from the public sphere. Now this is all very well as far as it goes but it really does not do anything to change the patriarchal order of society. Mill, I am sure thought himself to be a progressive thinker, as does Shlomo Swirski. But both of these progressive thinkers were largely blind to the real situation of women.
Hegel also speaks about 'men' in an abstract inclusive fashion. However while he is clearly aware of the existence of women he claims that not only do they have no rights to take part in the political process he is clearly terrified of what could happen if they tried to do so. He does everything he can, as a political theorist, to make sure that women stay as far away from the public sphere as possible. In his The Philosophy of Right, for example, he writes:
"... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?" (8)
My friend Rakefet Levkowitch-Efrat, who first drew my attention to these remarks of Hegel said to me with regard to them: "I often think that we feminist scholars must be masochists to spend our time dealing with writings like this. Don't you agree?" I do not agree with her. I believe that feminist scholars cannot afford not to comment on remarks such as this from such an influential and important political theorist like that of Hegel. Not to comment on remarks such as this is in...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
