A Reflection on Reflection 對反思的反思

My identities are complex. They keep changing and shifting focuses depending on context. And They should always be intersectional.

45465

“my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit.” – Flavia Dzodan

Reading this quote on Facebook today made me think of my positionality in relation to the #Ferguson issue. The jury officially announce that the white male police, Darren Wilson, face no charge shooting 18-year-old black citizen Michael Brown‬ to death on August 9th in Ferguson, Missouri, United States. Started from Ferguson, a city with a large black community, solidarity events and protests spread over the U.S. and some parts of the world, many tagged as #BlackLivesMatter. Learning from Alice Goffman’s lecture earlier this semester that in low-income black communities, young men have to face policing, arresting, and killing in their everyday life in the U.S., I do not just see the shooting and the jury decision as a single issue but a systematic problem that put the African-American ethnic groups in fundamental disadvantage and injustice. 

Why does this disturb me and why it is relevant to me? Because in this context I quickly see myself as a person of colour in a white-settler society (Razak, 2002) that is established upon white privilege.  At the same time, along the line of Razak’s intesectional approach to space, gender, and race, I am aware that my position as an ally with the #BlackLivesMatter protest is not simply related to my skin colour, but a self that intersects with multi-dimensional identities such as in ethnicity, gender, and social location. To expand my thoughts I think it is good to start with this tweet:

#Ferguson

[first, let me try to type in my thoughts in Chinese]

這幾行字簡約卻充滿爆炸性,因為其啓發我將種族和性別不公聯繫在一起。這在我看來,也是交織性女權主義的魅力。

[Then, I translate them into English]

These few lines are simple but explosive, since they push me to further see ethnic and gender oppression together (in a white-dominated patriarchal system). To me, this is the charm of intersectional feminism.

[as I learn sociology through an English-speaking education, I soon run out of words in Chinese and return my reflection to the English thinking mode]

To be sure, paralleling the experience of the “black man” and “girl” in contrast to the experience of the “white boy” does not mean that we should draw an equation mark between the two. My experience being a Chinese woman is very different from that of a black man. But the experiences of the blamed and the redeemed connect me to the movement of black people’s rights.

When I was taking SOCI 101 sociological theories in another university, I was confused about the feminist theory because I saw it as a combination of all kinds of social justice arguments. To be honest, I was not impressed at all and I came to resist the “feminism” label. I had negative feeling towards feminism as feminists make claims over almost every issue on injustice. To simply put, I was tired of seeing the label “feminism” everywhere. At the same time, “feminism” was a term that I often associated with the images of radical men-haters and naked FEMEN.

But now, when I am reflecting on how I have been reflecting on feminism during these few months, I see the value of feminism that intersects every social components together. Which means, nothing should be explained merely by race, gender, or class, etc. — it should be explained with these all together.

I first heard of the term “intersectionality” from the courses offered by the UBC Gender, Race, Sexuality, Justice program. I got to talk about it further through learning about it in some public lectures, and interacting with my friends who self-identified as feminists (mostly male!). This semester is very special to me in terms of the process of feminist self-realization. I never publicly claimed to be a feminist until I take SOCI433, which provides me with an intersectional approach to see my identities and other’s identities. The classroom goes beyond the physical space into the virtual space (Facebook group) of public discourses, and allows me discuss feminist topics and issues such as Emma Watson’s UN speech and rape cultural on UBC campus with friends and classmates.  More importantly, throughout reading feminist writings by Azaia, bell hooks, and Beckie, I realize that feminism is a way of thinking of the world intersectionally, and acknowledging our own limited but international perspectives. For example, early in Azaia’s thesis, she acknowledges that her writing comes from a perspective of a white urban working-class female (2014, p. 20). In bell hooks writing, she also make it clear of her positionality as a black female.

After all, in this post I touched lots of bits and pieces of my identities. You may think there is no “theme” or a major theory. But this is exactly my point. In this post I try to briefly show you how my identities are intersected:

  • my gender intersects with my ethnicity,  which make me an ally of the #BlackLivesMatter;
  • Chinese as my first language (everyday, reflective) intersect with English as my second language (academic, critical, reasoning)
  • my past perception of feminism intersects with my current experiences of feminism.
  • my social position as a UBC sociology student intersects with my gender, class, race, and other identities, which provide me with resource and access to critical-thinking education and further identity discovery.

My identities are complex. They could not, and should not, be reduced into a single one.

Reference:

Razack, S. (2002). Race, space, and the law. Toronto: Between the Lines.

Windwraith, A. (2014). Deconstructing the Language of Rape.

hooks, b. (2000). Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics.

Re-wording Kimmel’s Guyland: Institutionalized Masculinity for a Grade 7 Student

Every Monday morning, I get up early before attending our Sociology seminar class on Student Identity, to volunteer at my elementary school as a teacher’s assistant for my grade 7 teacher. Ever since I had started this volunteering position in October, I have recognized interersting things about the boy students in the class, throughout my two hours spent there.

My experiences in the past two months have been pleasurable and intellectually stimulating, simply by observing the classroom dynamics. During class time, I often witness the boys to be the students who are always tireless, vibrant, and the most spirited. In addition, the majority of the male students would also often raise their hands quickly to respond when the teacher poses a quesiton to the class. Moreover, it is often the boys who volunteer to assist the teacher move boxes around in the kitchen or to help transport some heavy textbooks from the library back to the class.

Moreover, in the two months, I could see the feelings spurring between a female student and a male student. From across the classroom, I can see them eyeing each other while the teacher lectures in front of the classroom. At worktime, as the girl works on her homework, the boy would take glimpses at her numerous times, and once the girl looks over, he quickly retrieves his glance. This would be the same for the girl as well. For instance, there was a time where the boy would get up from his seat to throw out a piece of garbage, the girl would pop her head up, as though she felt his moving presence. I could see that her eyes were following him. But once he turns around and walks back towards his seat, the girl would quickly look back down to her social studies homework. Talk about classroom romance!

From this, it is extremely interesting to me as it relates to Kimmel’s “Guyland” notion of Masculinity. His idea is rooted from the perspective that masculnity is socially constructed. Similar to the boys in the classroom at the elementary school, they reinforce what it “means” to be a “real man”. Clearly, it is suggested through their actions of carrying heavy objects and initiating to help the teacher out. Thus, these characteristics underline the masculine stereotypes: will-power and strength of men and that men are made to be team players. Kimmel describes that Guyland as a period between adolescence and adulthood (16 years old to around mid-20s). However in the case of this, the students are 13 year old gr 7 boys. As a result, Guyland doesn’t appear within a limited timeframe. In reality, it exists prior to 16 years old and is fluid between age groups.

In addtion, what I find also interesting is that there may be an aspect such that the boys in the class are complying to the masculine touches, in order to portray to the ladies that they have what it takes to be “the man”, or to be “manly”. In the case of the crush between the girl and boy, that specific boy more often than not that is the one who would raise his hand up to speak, the one who volunteers to participate in completing math questions on the whiteboard, as well, the one who offers to carry the heavy world atlases from classroom to classroom. Moreover, it is at this point that I recognize that  he is unaware of the implications of following such traits. Because masculinity is socially construcuted and is imposed on him, he does not struggle with his true identity and who he really is in an attempt to make themselves look “masculine” because he only sees manliness as the way to go. In other words, because individuals are born and brought up with the image of masculinity, we do not realize that we are following what society has created. In this case, the male student does what he does without his acknowledgement that he is complying to the social order and therefore, doesn’t realize the struggles of fitting into that category.

In contrary, our belief of masculinity is understood by the ladies as well. From what I see between the classroom lovebirds, I believe that it is due to the boy’s behaviors of masculinity, in which the girl is attracted to. With the boy taking the initiatives to respond to questions and hauling heavy boxes in and out, it shows that he is a team player and that he is powerful. Through this, with the help of social media today that reinforces the image of masculinity, the girl sees his actions as right and fitted, thus, increasing her liking towards him. As we can see, as Kimmel states that Guyland typically occurs at the age of 16, boys in fact adhere to this masculine ideal at an earlier age.

Alternatively, Kimmel raises that men also adhere to the “Bro Code” in which “a man’s ‘brothers’ are his real soul mates, his real life-partners.” In relation to thinking about the male students in the class, they often hang out together as a pack in order to, I would say, to put more emphasis on their “coolness” or tough mascunline traits. With this, it allows them to impose power among their other male counterparts in their class. In this case, this reinforce is created by their social in-group behaviors, without thinking the contrary, that can be seen as struggles.

Once again, it is because of the normality of what is means to be masculine, that these kids see these traits as the norm. Due to this idea, these elementary school student’s identities are standardized through the trope of what is means to be masculine by influences of the media and their friends. However in relation to me as an univeristy student majoring in Sociology, my ideas of such social constructions have been unpacked, therefore, I understand more of the truth that lies underneath the social beliefs. From this experience volunteering, I wonder every Monday how my identity would change if I were to just follow such constructions imposed by the world. In other words, how would my life be if I only followed what ‘femininity’ meant in society without the opporunities of being powerful and spirited, like the gr 7 student?

References:

Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men.

Breaking A Norm

Time flies so fast without a hint. Our seminar is entering its second last week. For old time’s sake, I want to reflect on a little event that I created in this seminar at the beginning of the term.

I planned a norm-breaking experiment* with a friend, who was going to give a presentation to the SOCI 433 class with me. I told him that I want to break a norm by speaking Chinese in a class setting, and at the same time displaying important contents in Chinese, and he can do the same in Filipino, one of his mother tongues. (For those who are not familiar with the class, it is a student directed seminar on identity and structure. I am one of the four coordinators of this class. It has15 enrolled students, whose majors are sociology and political science; all of them are in second year level or higher. Every week, students attend two 1.5 hours classes, and one to three of them have to give a presentation on the assigned readings and facilitate a discussion afterwards.) Our presentation took place in the fourth class, when personal network was not well established between the presenters and the audience.

At the beginning of the presentation, I showed a PowerPoint slide with a rather long introduction of the reading and discussion contents in traditional Chinese. At the same time, I stood in front of the classroom, faced 14 colleagues, and talked in a serious tone about the contents in Mandarin for roughly one minute. Then my presentation partner at the back of the classroom began to speak fast in Filipino, with the long written Pilipino displayed in another PowerPoint slide. After that, we switch our language back to English. Before the class ended, we asked our colleagues to reflect on our behaviours and we debriefed on our experiment.

At first, I feel a little unprepared and uncomfortable, mainly because I had to start the presentation with Chinese. My nervousness affected my speech, making me unable to speak Mandarin as fluent as English. But as I continued talking, I came to an assumption that the contents were communicated to the audience, who remained silent but attentive. I somehow forgot the fact that all I said and displayed in Chinese would not be understood by the majority of the students. Later, when listening to my partner speaking a language that I am unfamiliar with, I was unable to capture any meaning, although I judged from the duration of the speech and the length of the written words that he was mentioning some important points.

Speaking in a non-English language in a sociology class was so unnatural that it seemed to be merely a performance. I had to control myself not to laugh at our pretentiousness. No one interrupted our speech or raised questions. When we finished this introduction, we suddenly spoke in English again, because we knew that English is the only language to sustain the operation of this class. At the end of the class, students reflected on our acts. A white female responded that at first, she expected us to translate what we said; then she came to question herself in her head why she should expect that. Another white female also reflected that she unexpected us to speak in non-English languages, but then she also realized that speaking English as a norm in universities is questionable.

By speaking non-English languages for a certain period of time without notifying my classmates, and acting as normal as I can, I intended to challenge other students’ expectation of receiving a presentation in English in a formal class setting. According to Neil Smelser, social norms are a set of mutual expectations of how to think and behave (as cited in Nick, 2002, p. 40). Their surprise would reflect that English is the normative language used in Vancouver’s higher education institutions like the UBC. Why is English the normative language at UBC? This question triggers a series of complex discussions about space, language, and identities of Vancouver. In brief, UBC is based on the unceded territory of the Musqueam community, but its official language is exclusively English, which reflects the white settler society’s identity control of communications and values over this public space.

As a Chinese, I share neither the indigenous identities nor the white settlers’ identities. Speaking my own language in a classroom, where communication in English is mutually expected, not only challenge the normalization of a white settler society’s language, but also challenge my legitimacy of speaking Chinese in public. Chinese characters and Mandarin represent my identities and values as a Chinese; they also represent knowledge and experiences that are required to understand the language. My location in the front of a classroom facing all students put me into a public space, and since I am one of the presenters, I became the center of the public discourse.

Occupying a foreign public space, being the central of focuses, and speaking in my mother tongue that few audience understood, make me a representative of a single unified identity and value as a Chinese. Yet as an individual actor in this experiment, I realized that communicating my Chinese identity and value to a public space outside China contains several barriers: the displacement of collective knowledge and experience relevant to China, the displacement of China’s cultural and political contexts, and the displacement of the audience that I can communicate.

* this experiment was part of the assignment of another sociology course that I enrolled in, which was a seminar on social movement.

Reference

Nick, C. (2002). Making Sense of Social Movements. McGraw-Hill International.