Gender: Constructions vs Stereotypes

Gender constructions are not meant to be gender based stereotypes.
Understanding the constructions of behavior helps identify the root at the
cause and can lead to perpetuation if one is interested in perpetuation, or
can lead to identification and elimination in one's personal behavior. If
you identify cliches in art you learn to avoid them. The same is true if you
learn to identify cliches in one's identity. If we can analyze the roles
that are dictated by culture in regards to gender, we can identify and
neutralize them.

The idea behind the Gender essay was simply to point out where people merge
into thier constructions. Ultimately, my interest in art, and in discussion,
is in the elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity as a
means of direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the barrage of
childhood in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes place in
gender, it takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive behaviors and
in how people interact with authority.

My hope with the essay was simply to expose what these constructions are-
this is my interest in almost everything I do. To understand illusions so we
know when we are falling prey to them, and losing ourselves in the process.

-e.

Comments

, mark cooley

"If we can analyze the roles that are dictated by culture in regards to gender, we can identify and neutralize them…

…Ultimately, my interest in art, and in discussion, is in the elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity as a means of direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the barrage of childhood in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes place in gender, it takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive behaviors and in how people interact with authority."


These statements explain very nicely the position from which your essay was written. In that context the essay was very successful. My comments were meant to point out that the essay assumes that there is such a thing as socially constructed identity, and at the same time reserves a space (whatever that may be) for a non-constructed identity. typically, I think that this is considered a rightwing enterprise since it sets up an opposition between a non-constructed identity (pure) and the manipulated socially constructed identity (impure).

..i mean come on listen to this language…

"dictated by culture… identify and neutralize them… elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity…"

… it sounds like a fucking paper on eugenics.


mark




> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> Gender constructions are not meant to be gender based stereotypes.
> Understanding the constructions of behavior helps identify the root at
> the
> cause and can lead to perpetuation if one is interested in
> perpetuation, or
> can lead to identification and elimination in one's personal behavior.
> If
> you identify cliches in art you learn to avoid them. The same is true
> if you
> learn to identify cliches in one's identity. If we can analyze the
> roles
> that are dictated by culture in regards to gender, we can identify and
> neutralize them.
>
> The idea behind the Gender essay was simply to point out where people
> merge
> into thier constructions. Ultimately, my interest in art, and in
> discussion,
> is in the elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity
> as a
> means of direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the
> barrage of
> childhood in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes
> place in
> gender, it takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive behaviors
> and
> in how people interact with authority.
>
> My hope with the essay was simply to expose what these constructions
> are-
> this is my interest in almost everything I do. To understand illusions
> so we
> know when we are falling prey to them, and losing ourselves in the
> process.
>
> -e.
>

, patrick lichty

Welcome to the gender minefield, Eryk!

I won't go into a detailed analysis of the essay, but my opinion is that it
does not exhibit a knowledge of the really quite immense body of study on
the nature of gender both offline and online. This is a very well
documented area in areas of literary, dramatic, queer and cultural studies
to name a few, and this essay makes certain assumptions without anchoring
itself sufficiently to the extant body of research. It has some major ,
major holes that should be either rethought or recontextualized in order to
make it all hang together. The purity thing is one, and is a major problem
with much postcolonial theory that assumes that there can ever be a 'pure'
position before moving into the argument.

I'd probably mea culpa, drop back, and restrategize.
No offense, I get on a thin track myself on occasion.

, Eryk Salvaggio

—– Original Message —–
From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>


> These statements explain very nicely the position from which your essay
was written. In that context the essay was very successful. My comments
were meant to point out that the essay assumes that there is such a thing as
socially constructed identity, and at the same time reserves a space
(whatever that may be) for a non-constructed identity. typically, I think
that this is considered a rightwing enterprise since it sets up an
opposition between a non-constructed identity (pure) and the manipulated
socially constructed identity (impure).


I tend to find my beliefs in this matter oftentimes frighteningly
conservative. I think I may have been vague though, when I say "constructed"
ultimately I am talking about what no right winger would admit is a source
of any problems- class, media hegemony, gender, race, even "corporate cool."
Non constructed identity is purer. Look at situationism, look at dada- the
idea of self, of making up ones own mind, of rejecting influence- is neither
right nor left, since both of these are constructions informed by
class/media/corporations etc.

There is also the personal issues- found in binaries of academics who
identify with lefty/righty- that wrestling is low culture, for example.
Something POMO got right, imo, is that there isn't any seperation between
high/low, despite my own personal feelings to the contrary. Looking down on
wrestling is similar to looking down on African Voodoo. It's the result of a
seperate cultural institution. In this regards, actualized/non actualized
entities aren't "better" or "worse" but what works better on an individual
basis within the framework of society? If one wants to be a product of
cultural indoctrination then that is one's right, but for those of us who
are looking for access to actualization there is a different approach that
has to be sought out.



>
> ..i mean come on listen to this language…
>
> "dictated by culture… identify and neutralize them… elimination of
role playing at any level of one's identity…"
>
> … it sounds like a fucking paper on eugenics.


Actually, it sounds more like Jihad. Which is precisely what the Islamic
Jihad meant originally. It was the elimination of *internal* blockages to
finding ones own power and ones own voice. Luckily, the eugenics comparison
stops swiftly because we aren't talking about enforcing this on a wide scale
to the general population. What I am talking about is simply a matter of
personal responsibility for connecting to the world in as unmediated a
manner as possible, if it is possible. (I believe it is.)

I think the two of us share a common question: How is gender a vector in the
mediation of our reality? I just think the answer can be found out
regardless of how it is constructed. Call it cognitive feminism. :)


-e.

, Eryk Salvaggio

Patrick;

No offense taken, but it begs another question: why isn't anyone else on
rhizome writing about it? Why is it left with the night school kid?

Again, I am seeing a "purity issue" bandied about which never existed, or at
least hasn't been explained in a way that I can understand it for what it
is. If you would be so kind as to elaborate on what the purity issue is, and
why it is flawed, I would appreciate it.

Cheers,
-e.





—– Original Message —–
From: "Patrick Lichty" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Gender: Constructions vs Stereotypes


> Welcome to the gender minefield, Eryk!
>
> I won't go into a detailed analysis of the essay, but my opinion is that
it
> does not exhibit a knowledge of the really quite immense body of study on
> the nature of gender both offline and online. This is a very well
> documented area in areas of literary, dramatic, queer and cultural studies
> to name a few, and this essay makes certain assumptions without anchoring
> itself sufficiently to the extant body of research. It has some major ,
> major holes that should be either rethought or recontextualized in order
to
> make it all hang together. The purity thing is one, and is a major
problem
> with much postcolonial theory that assumes that there can ever be a 'pure'
> position before moving into the argument.
>
> I'd probably mea culpa, drop back, and restrategize.
> No offense, I get on a thin track myself on occasion.
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

, Eryk Salvaggio

PS: Could you elaborate on how my desire to understand the world outside of
the constructs of the power elite connects to your claim that I am
advocating a philosophy of controlled breeding for humans?

-e.




—– Original Message —–
From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Gender: Constructions vs Stereotypes


>
>
> "If we can analyze the roles that are dictated by culture in regards to
gender, we can identify and neutralize them…
>
> …Ultimately, my interest in art, and in discussion, is in the
elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity as a means of
direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the barrage of childhood
in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes place in gender, it
takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive behaviors and in how
people interact with authority."
>
>
> These statements explain very nicely the position from which your essay
was written. In that context the essay was very successful. My comments
were meant to point out that the essay assumes that there is such a thing as
socially constructed identity, and at the same time reserves a space
(whatever that may be) for a non-constructed identity. typically, I think
that this is considered a rightwing enterprise since it sets up an
opposition between a non-constructed identity (pure) and the manipulated
socially constructed identity (impure).
>
> ..i mean come on listen to this language…
>
> "dictated by culture… identify and neutralize them… elimination of
role playing at any level of one's identity…"
>
> … it sounds like a fucking paper on eugenics.
>
>
> mark
>
>
>
>
> > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> > Gender constructions are not meant to be gender based stereotypes.
> > Understanding the constructions of behavior helps identify the root at
> > the
> > cause and can lead to perpetuation if one is interested in
> > perpetuation, or
> > can lead to identification and elimination in one's personal behavior.
> > If
> > you identify cliches in art you learn to avoid them. The same is true
> > if you
> > learn to identify cliches in one's identity. If we can analyze the
> > roles
> > that are dictated by culture in regards to gender, we can identify and
> > neutralize them.
> >
> > The idea behind the Gender essay was simply to point out where people
> > merge
> > into thier constructions. Ultimately, my interest in art, and in
> > discussion,
> > is in the elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity
> > as a
> > means of direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the
> > barrage of
> > childhood in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes
> > place in
> > gender, it takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive behaviors
> > and
> > in how people interact with authority.
> >
> > My hope with the essay was simply to expose what these constructions
> > are-
> > this is my interest in almost everything I do. To understand illusions
> > so we
> > know when we are falling prey to them, and losing ourselves in the
> > process.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

, Eryk Salvaggio

But I never said anyone was more or less valuable based on thier
independence from the roles put onto them by society. I am simply saying
that since the whole order of the world is essentially a projection; we have
a right to question those projections in order to eliminate any restraint
placed on individuals as a result of them.

I mean, what is oppression, really, if it isn't perpetuated in the myths a
culture subscribes to. If the myth is that blacks are animals and slavery is
acceptable, that Jews are vermin that need to be eliminated, or that women
can't hold a position of power, then thats an extreme. But there are subtler
myths subscribed to by every culture- that consuming is a key to happiness,
that the poor are lazy, that boys need to be raised to compete and girls
need to be raised to be more emotionally connected, etc. I am only looking
to return to a "pure" state where purity is defined as freedom from
self-inflicted oppression.

-e.





—– Original Message —–
From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:19 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Gender: Constructions vs Stereotypes


> there is a similarity in language - eugenics assumes that people have
inherent value/non-value depending on a political/economic construct called
"race" which is not understood by its proponants as constructs, but rather
practiced as an ideology (i am defining ideology as "values, beliefs, habits
which are assumed to be natural). The enterprise of eugenics was never
intended to investigate how people are socialized rather to go (supposedly)
beyond to that which is inherent in humans of different skin pigmintation
and then draw "logical" value judgements from there. Likewise, there are
those who call themselves feminists who believe that males and females have
certain inherent traits or essential characteristics - carried to its
conclusion - in your words … "If we can analyze the roles that are
dictated by culture in regards to gender, we can identify and neutralize
them…" Who would be "neutralizing" and who would be Neutralized? I was
not asking you to write another !
> essay. I was pointing out that you fall in the camp of essentializing
feminists - which I see huge political problems with. This is a classic
debate among feminists - the materialists and the essentialists, but i
certainly do think that the debate is very much worth having - perhaps not
for you - but i am assuming maybe for some of the rhizome users. … and as
far as your suggestion for me to write my "own essay" - why? it's so much
funner to respond to yours
>
> - i mean that as a compliment.
>
> thanks
>
> mark c
>
>
> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > PS: Could you elaborate on how my desire to understand the world
> > outside of
> > the constructs of the power elite connects to your claim that I am
> > advocating a philosophy of controlled breeding for humans?
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:57 PM
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Gender: Constructions vs Stereotypes
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "If we can analyze the roles that are dictated by culture in regards
> > to
> > gender, we can identify and neutralize them…
> > >
> > > …Ultimately, my interest in art, and in discussion, is in the
> > elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity as a means
> > of
> > direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the barrage of
> > childhood
> > in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes place in
> > gender, it
> > takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive behaviors and in how
> > people interact with authority."
> > >
> > >
> > > These statements explain very nicely the position from which your
> > essay
> > was written. In that context the essay was very successful. My
> > comments
> > were meant to point out that the essay assumes that there is such a
> > thing as
> > socially constructed identity, and at the same time reserves a space
> > (whatever that may be) for a non-constructed identity. typically, I
> > think
> > that this is considered a rightwing enterprise since it sets up an
> > opposition between a non-constructed identity (pure) and the
> > manipulated
> > socially constructed identity (impure).
> > >
> > > ..i mean come on listen to this language…
> > >
> > > "dictated by culture… identify and neutralize them… elimination
> > of
> > role playing at any level of one's identity…"
> > >
> > > … it sounds like a fucking paper on eugenics.
> > >
> > >
> > > mark
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gender constructions are not meant to be gender based stereotypes.
> > > > Understanding the constructions of behavior helps identify the
> > root at
> > > > the
> > > > cause and can lead to perpetuation if one is interested in
> > > > perpetuation, or
> > > > can lead to identification and elimination in one's personal
> > behavior.
> > > > If
> > > > you identify cliches in art you learn to avoid them. The same is
> > true
> > > > if you
> > > > learn to identify cliches in one's identity. If we can analyze the
> > > > roles
> > > > that are dictated by culture in regards to gender, we can identify
> > and
> > > > neutralize them.
> > > >
> > > > The idea behind the Gender essay was simply to point out where
> > people
> > > > merge
> > > > into thier constructions. Ultimately, my interest in art, and in
> > > > discussion,
> > > > is in the elimination of role playing at any level of one's
> > identity
> > > > as a
> > > > means of direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the
> > > > barrage of
> > > > childhood in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes
> > > > place in
> > > > gender, it takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive
> > behaviors
> > > > and
> > > > in how people interact with authority.
> > > >
> > > > My hope with the essay was simply to expose what these
> > constructions
> > > > are-
> > > > this is my interest in almost everything I do. To understand
> > illusions
> > > > so we
> > > > know when we are falling prey to them, and losing ourselves in the
> > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > -e.
> > > >
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>