On the docket for our next class is a strange and sundry blend of topics and texts to cover. We will wrap up our section on alterity and masculinity with a presentation by Taylor on sci-fi films in cold war America. Please take this opportunity to synthesize the previous material, especially Sinyavsky and Burroughs, and stick it in your mind's eye as we watch Dr. Strangelove down the road apiece. Although its genre is more accurately a political satire, you'll find Kubrick's film nonetheless forces us to think about the surreal scenarios and attendant anxieties (about gender!) engendered by scientific knowledge in a nuclear age.
 |
| So strange is this vision of the technological future for housework in postwar America, as in this 1952 print ad for the Hotpoint electric range, it shouldcause us to make connections between science/sci-fi, and the cold war family! |
While all that simmers, make sure your discussion question for Thursday deals directly with the pieces on the calendar for this class, on which Eden will also be presenting: the Kitchen Debate and two texts by socialist authors writing about the so-called women's question from the point of view of women themselves. In fact, as Hannah pointed out, this is the first time women have spoken for themselves on our syllabus, and we should interrogate that detail from a metacurricular angle: why is that so? How might we explain such an omission according to larger cultural logics? More pointedly, how does the Kitchen Debate instantiate such a sexist oversight?
In the communist state, as mentioned in the section "Make-Up and Other Crucial Questions" women are instructed in magazines "to be good workers and part members first, then mothers, then housewives, and sex objects next, - never themselves?" This quotation is suppose to highlight the difference between the Western Magazine and the Communist Magazine, but I really don't see much of a difference, other than perhaps the order of the woman's priorities in the west.
ReplyDeleteI then read The Kitchen Debate transcript and found that even in the "free thinking" west, where the Soviet woman longed to be because she would have choice, the only mention of women (and really the only mention of women thus far) have been in the role of the housewife. I found it interesting how the only mention of western women in the Soviet perspective is of the fashion magazines, and not the housewife. I also connected to Mad Men and women using their sexuality to gain an "equal" status to men as far as the workplace. Is there a possibility for women to be equal to men, even today there are issues with women's reproductive health, much like the problem of sanitation material. How far has the United States come in "equality"? How different were conditions as far as freedom of choice in either country really? Given the prescribed roles to women in either country, is there even a freedom today for women to be "themselves"?
In "Make-Up and Other Crucial Questions" Drakulic discusses the "humiliation" that is associated with being a woman in the Soviet Union. This humiliation comes from the fact that a system that is dominated by men generally ignores the very existence of women by using equality as a synonym for sameness. In this way, the female body is one that is actively set in opposition to the Soviet state. Drakulic tells the story of her mother taking a trip to Italy and returning with products that, to her, define femininity--the dressing gown in particular. Do you think that possessing these goods signify some kind of rebellion for her mother in the form of reclaiming her femininity? What kind of feminist rebellion existed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War? In what ways might they have been related to or separate from feminist movements in the United States?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the cost of admission for women into the paradise of gender parity is nothing less than femininity! To become men's equals women must become men, in effect. No wonder Soviet heterosexual masculinity is in peril!
DeleteAbby and others interested in Soviet and post-Soviet feminisms from Alexandra Kollontai and Clara Zetkind up to Pussy Riot and their less notorious coevals in contemporary Russia, you may want to check out this Friday's U of M event: https://events.umn.edu/029106. I tried to arrange a van to take us but they're all booked up for sports events... At least we'll always have Indochine!
DeleteIn the Kitchen Debate video, we witness the competitive rivalry between the Soviet Union and America, clear through their comparisons of technology and other advances. Khrushchev is very cocky and assured of his country's growing power, claiming that despite its youth, in seven years the Soviet Union will pass America's "level." Looking back, how did this I'm-better-than-you attitude shape the behaviors of citizens of both countries during the Cold War? Was Khrushchev's confidence ultimately a downfall or did it provide hope for Russian citizens?
ReplyDeleteI also took note of the personality differences between Nixon and Khrushchev. The Kitchen Debate took place around the time the Space Race was taking off (I think). This really meant the two countries were at odds with each other, which made the "one-upping" between Nixon and Khrushchev all the more interesting. Although the debate is clearly about capitalism vs communism, it did demonstrate the tangible tension between the US and the USSR. Is it possible that their desire to be better than the other (no matter what context) is what lead to the downfall of the USSR? What kind of effects did this have on the US?
DeleteOne thing I noticed that was consistent across many texts was the devaluement (devaluing? devalueship?) of the Soviet woman as a strong and independent person. This is shown in "Elizabeth Arden" when the narrator was talking about the character of Elizabeth Arden, noticed the fear on her face and stated that she must be becoming a true Soviet woman. "Make Up and Other Questions" also completely didn't acknowledge that Soviet women could be more than their looks. At this point in the United States, women are pigeon-holed into a perpetual state of being a housewife, or in the position as a secretary (as seen in Mad Men). How can we compare the spaces for women in each of these societies? Is one of them more anti-feminist than the other?
ReplyDeleteI had a similar series of reactions/ and questions in relation to the texts for today. Western feminist discourse in the 1950s and 1960s (which continue to manifest in contemporary feminist debates) often talk about spaces as a means of speaking to the systematic disenfranchisement of women in the United States. Within the framework of second wave feminism, white women rejected their confinement to private spaces which were considered devoid of any potential for productive labor. We see a very different attitude about public/private dimensions in the Zernova and the Drakulik, where female protagonists, at times, struggle to ascertain privacy. I thought we might interrogate these differences, focusing on how attitudes about productive labor relate to the distinction between public/private spaces in American and Soviet locations.
DeleteIn the kitchen debate transcript, Nixon remarks proudly that the modern American kitchen provides conveniences that alleviate the burdens of womanhood, to which Khrushchev replies, "Your capitalistic attitude about women does not occur under communism." Why is this conversation about women (in which women are positioned as object rather than subject) central to the debate between these two world leaders? Consider how ideas about femininity and domesticity work to construct disparate, hegemonically male national identities?
Commenter notes: After re-reading this, I realize that the questions I pose at the end may take a life-time to answer, let alone an hour and a half. Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteStart existential and Marxist rants:
As always, the capitalism v. socialism debate centers around the idea of choice. In the Kitchen debate, Khrushchev points out that citizens of the Soviet Union also have houses and nice appliances. But Nixon claims that capitalism is better because people get to chose their commodities and can upgrade if they desire. That is, in the Soviet Union, having a house and appliances are rights, but not necessarily having the nicest appliances or the nicest house. Whereas in the United States, families have the right to chose which house and which appliances they want to own, but housing is not seen as a right in-and-of-itself. In "Make-up and Other Crucial Questions," what women want more than anything, it seems, is to be able to choose their style, their fashion, and their femininity. This idea of choice culminates in "Elizabeth Arden" when the main character, as she's about to go to prison, reflects that she is already living in a prison. Her life is not her own. Everyone in the Soviet Union lives in fear of not making the correct choices. However, the title of the book, the make-up container, cosmetician are rooted in the idea of consumption and choice, as though the only way to free your spirit from under the thumb of the repressive government is to buy western cosmetics: western beauty, western, capitalist choice.
But is the choice between Sephora and MAC really a choice? The narrator in "Make-up and Other Crucial Questions" believes (and she has a point) that how you present yourself to society is the only real way in which you are perceived: your identity is what you buy. That is why the concept of individuality is at the core of western capitalist society. But if who we are is merely what we buy, then what are we besides vacuous drones that buy things? An identity based on commodities is a sham and a lie propagated to keep the proletarians buying things so the bourgeoisie can have more money...to buy things.
The choice between commodities is not a real choice. If capitalism equals freedom then its a freedom to buy, not a freedom to choice. Real freedom and real choice are dangerous and if allowed, could lead to anarchy, since the state would be ceding control to the masses. By the same token, freedom and choice are terrifying because if you truly have freedom (and thereby freedom of choice) then you are also completely responsible for your actions. You can't blame anyone else if something goes wrong or if you're unsatisfied.
So, with all of that in mind, how do we create real identity? Does identity even exist or is it just a capitalist social construct? If it can exist, is it possible to have a real identity in a place like the Soviet Union where the government makes all "choices" for you or in a place like the United States where "choice" equates what you buy? What would "real" choice look like? Like identity, does it actually exist?
Bringing in the question of women's roles in society, how does all of this affect the underlying notion that woMEN are somehow less huMAN men? Society seems to give men more freedom of choice than it does women. In the fifties (US) women could go to school, but then they needed to get married and raise a family. Now, it's women can go to school and get a job, have a career for a little while, but then they need to settle down and catapult out some babies. Does this lack of agency in having a choice in one's life mean that women are more prone to want to express their individuality through consumption? Is this what the women we read for this class are trying to express? Or is this just me pushing my thoughts onto others?
End rants, begin crises.
Yes. Just yes.
DeleteAlso, sorry about the essay.
ReplyDeleteNo apologies necessary. .And nice use of baby-catapaults in your post.
DeleteHannah, yes, capitalism is always in crisis, so let's resume and ratchet up the stakes of this blog discussion instead! Why do we need identity at all? Or individuality? Is the ability to be distinct from others, to separate oneself off discretely from the rest of the world, is that also what we mean when we talk about freedom?
ReplyDeleteIn both “Elizabeth Arden” and “Makeup and Other Crucial Questions”, women are described using the beauty products as their main characteristic; and according to “Makeup”, “Women say they do not dress up for men….[rather,] they are doing it to show difference.” Women, then, still have to prove something—their individualism--which is impossible in limiting, male dominated Soviet society. Furthermore, these are the only two texts we have read that have been authored by women, and since both focus clearly on aesthetics, women become associated with shallow “pretty things”.
ReplyDeleteIt is rather ironic then that Khrushchev comments in “The Kitchen Debate” that “capitalistic attitude towards women does not occur under Communism”; essentially that communism doesn’t exploit women based on their gender. That being said, Nixon portrays women as housewives only. Both leaders, then, seem oblivious to the plight of women in their countries.
Where is there evidence in today’s society that our culture has become desensitized to sexism? What has been the role of political figureheads in perpetuating this sexism?
I apologize for the ramble-iness.
No apologies necessary here either. Rather than admonishing rambling comments, I encourage them. This is the space to freely explore ideas together, and often the more complex answers start out amorphously in their first articulations. We should be leery of points so polished they can't be penetrated by conversation. But now I digress...Great, provocative post!
ReplyDeleteNon-academic I cannot resist asking first - did the section in "Make-up and other Crucial Questions" about the makeshift red dye remind anyone of (if anyone even watches this) Galina "Red" Resnikov on Orange is the New Black? I love when you learn about/recognize a real cultural reference in books and movies and what not.
ReplyDeleteAnyway. The texts for this week all express the ways in which feminine bodies become politicized - forced into the public sphere, manipulated to each country's own political advantage, and put under scrutiny/surveillance. We see particularly in the stories we read that the expression of a female gender identity is policed by the state in an attempt to eradicate it in the name of gender equality (despite still being overwhelmingly sexist -women still have to live up to society's less enviable expectations of the feminine, and masculinity is never questioned), even subjected to inspection and suspicion - and possible punishment. The two states both have very different and very strict visions concerning gender, although one seeks to subvert gender differences and one pridefully embraces a very narrow version of them. What similarities are there between state/societal policing of the feminine? What differences? How do the states use their female bodies against one another?
In "Make-up and Other Crucial Questions," the narrator says, "To tell us they are making a profit by exploiting our needs is like warning a Bangladeshi about cholesterol" (28), thus complicating the universality of moral judgments. Thinking about the Kitchen debate, to what extent do we see the idea that what is right for some may be wrong for others? Do Khrushchev and Nixon seem to think that the others' country would function better under their own economic system, or do they merely want to prove that their system works better in their respective countries?
ReplyDeleteP.S. Mackenzie, I didn't make that connection until you pointed it out, but that's really cool! Everyone should watch that show if they haven't already.
Class! Your posts are always excellent, but this comment thread is so superlative and shrewd, without spilling a drop of interpretive pleasure, you've given your (comparatively) old professor goosebumps.
ReplyDelete...and also made it utterly mandatory that I marathon-watch Orange is the New Black over the winter break.
An article about the Soviet Exhibition in New York City:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-visitors-to-soviet-exhibition-in-new-york-express-their-feelings
And an accompanying video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOTND-tlg9g
Thank, Jordan!
Delete