 |
| Credit to https://mujeresalfrente.org/en/women-artists/ |
John Burnham (a famous family therapist) coined the term “Social GRACES”. This is a short-hand to itemise the
different social identifiers or 'lens', that define the complexity of difference in
all societies.
GRACES is an acronym for Gender,
Geography, Race, Religion, Ability, Appearance, Culture, Class/Caste,
Education, Employment, Ethnicity, Spirituality, Sexuality, Sexual Orientation.
Each of these labels signifies an aspect of ourselves, and each
other, that is affected by the sliding scale of ‘power’. Power is observable in nature. We know about ‘bulls’, and we see dogs
negotiate the ‘pack hierarchy’. Our pets
even do it with us. Within human groups
this becomes more complex. With power comes the abuse of power; a sad fact of life. The issue of
morality and ethics inherent in power differences differentiates us for the animal
world.
Pearce and Pearce 1970 introduced the acronym LUUUTT to describe
a way of understanding how power is defined in society. They posit that our lives are full of
stories. Some stories are dominate/ ‘official’, and others are proscribed. Oft repeated stories from powerful sources become reinforced in society and
soon become ‘highways for travel and thought’. Over time we cease
to even be aware that they are only stories. They become established as 'given'.
Other stories are quieter or suppressed. To get to a full and honest picture of what is going on about us, which may enable to see more clearly and address the difficulties within human relationship, we have to find ways that all
stories can be heard.
Their acronym categorises stories into:-
“Lived Stories,
Untold stories, Unknown Stories, Unheard Stories, Told Stories and Stories in the Telling.”
Families are full of stories. The most infamous stories are
taboos, where much distress is created when the rules around these stories are
broken. Freud is famously quoted saying ‘we
never forget anything; we just repress it.’
This also happens nationally, and internationally. For example, I think of the gypsy being
evicted from the Lord of the Manors’ land, who looks back and says,
“You did
not invite us to the meeting where you devised your laws on land
ownership.
We would have come and
disagreed.”
My thoughts are prompted by a discussion yesterday with
friends, about their criteria for choosing the person they voted for. We discussed ‘family values’, and in particular,
attitudes to ‘gender’.
I thought I would write myself a short essay on the subject.
Gender. The
idea here is that we need to know "What
is your gender?" People who present as
gender ambivalent creates agitation in us. I see this as goes back to primitive biology. Subconsciously we clock gender within milli seconds
of seeing someone. Does this relate to a
primitive mating instinct? Slim women
are favoured. They clearly are no pregnant. Big breasts indicates ability to feed babies. For men it’s strength and virility. It’s all very primordial.
When people do not fit with the biological pattern of
expected behaviour a dissonance is created.
We are compelled to resolve the dissonance.
The political argument is that to digress from the ‘pre
ordained pattern’ is to threaten the stability of the family. There is a concern that without clear moral guidelines,
our society will risk ‘unravelling’. Last
year during a day of self-defence and de-escalation training, I was paired with
a person who told me about her ‘three-way marriage’. She said it caused great confusion when they stayed
in hotels and requested a ‘triple’ bed.
The fear might be that threesome weddings may become the
norm. People may be given the right to
require ‘triple beds’. In reality, polygamy is as old as the
hills. So are large beds, though mainly found
outside Europe.
A lot of the politics involved with gender involves fear of
the ‘what if’. In reality difference from
the norm is rare. Most people actually
prefer the norm. A lot of the distress
people confront in themselves is about facing up to their difference. and coping with how this
impacts on the people around them.
When my flatmate told me he was gay, he assumed I would want
nothing to do with him. My take on this
was that he was protecting himself from rejection by assuming that I would reject him. It did not work the other way round. I did not fear that he would reject me. I had no choice but to sort out my attitudes
to him, and his partner, very quickly.
The mental images of intimacy with the gender you are not attracted to
also create ‘disgust’. The risk is that
this ‘biological’ experience, is confused with a moral attitude. The two must be unpicked. For example, I might also experience this when
a disabled person marries an able person.
Dissonance is automatically elicited. What’s
going on here? It does not fit with
biological norms.
Queen Victoria famously said that lesbianism was acceptable,
because she could not see how women could have sex with each other. Her biological triggers were not being aroused
(or she lacked imagination.)
The ONS gives us the data about the UK population.
0.5% of the Uk population reported that they were trans-gender
(262,000, in a population from 67.6 million.)
89.4% of the UK population in the 2021 census described themselves at
heterosexual. 3.2 % of people identified as gay
or lesbian or bisexual. The others did not enter a result. The 'not
reporting' obviously asks questions about the State's interest in the use of labels and statistics. The Nazi government was interested in
statistic, and ‘trust in the system’ is part of gender politics.
The point here is that the power in Gender politics rests
with the overwhelming majority. In the
same way, a multi-ethnic Britain (82% of people in the UK identify as
White. The third biggest ethic category (after Indian) is mixed white, black/Asian). The dominant,
historical narrative and traditional culture in the UK is not going to change dramatically. There will be no mass conversions. People are not going to stop loving the monarchy. In fact, it’s far more likely for minorities to
be absorbed into the majority. There is
a gravitational force from me on the earth, it’s just the power of the earth seems
to overwhelmingly call the shots.
Another new model that helps describe the complexity of ‘Power’
in called ‘The Wheel of Power and Privilege’, designed by Sylvia
Duckworth. This came from work done with
the Canadian Council for Refugees, describing the new sociological subject of ‘intersectionality'. Intersectionality is a bit like ordering a
coffee from a New York coffees house.
The website takeout.com reports the most complicated coffee ordered in starbucks was a…
“Venti Caramel
Ribbon Crunch Frappuccino with five bananas, extra caramel drizzle, extra
whipped cream, extra ice, extra Cinnamon Dolce Sprinkles, seven pumps of Dark
Caramel Sauce, extra Caramel Crunch Topping, one pump Honey Blend, extra Salted
Butter Topping, five pumps of Frappuccino Roast, and seven Frappuccino Chips,
made with heavy cream and double-blended.”
Coffee is complex; and so are we.
Here is a diagram that tries to catch the complexity of the ever changing state of power relations between us all. Some power differences are natural, such as age and ability. Others are imposed such as wealth and skin colour. Where do I fit in this complex web?
In Summary, three observation I make are:-
1) People with power tend to minimise this, and not
appreciate or recognise the power vested in them. I am reminded on the coy elderly couple,
surrounded by their grown up children, who told a social work colleague of mine, that they had just got
married. My colleague, surprised, ask
they why it had taken them so long. The
wife, blushed and explained that when she was very young, she had been to see the
doctor, who was concerned about her ‘down below’, and had advised her not to
get married. Looking sweetly at her
husband, she said they were so old now, they thought they could risk it.
2) When people from minorities, or those with less
power, voice their side of the story, this is invariably batted down and classified
as ‘revisionist’, or denying history. History is written by the victors.
3) The significance of gender has been transformed
through universal human suffrage, which is now generally accepted across the
world. Also by mechanisation, where
women can now compete as equals because muscular power is now overshadowed by the
machine. As the chief of Police in
Kabul, a women, replied when asked how she controlled all these men, “I carry a
gun” (yes- in bygone days).
When an issue does not affect us directly, there is a risk that we can minimise, and challenge the experiences of others, seeing them as 'politically motivated'. When the label affects us directly, it's another matter. It is difficult to understand 'the others'.
A challenge I have given myself is to try not to see Gender, or skin colour as holding much significance. I do this by first recognising that I have, and then toning down the volume.
