Patriarchal White Supremacy as a Public Health Crisis
Sociological Meanderings Towards Collective Well-Being
Most of us think of authenticity in psychological terms — authenticity refers to our capacity to look inside ourselves and to find and then go out into the world to be our “true” selves. Let’s reiterate here that this is an accurate psychological definition, but it is not a sociological one.
Sociologically speaking, we don’t have a stable “true” self, but a constantly shifting one. Our authenticity shifts moment by moment based on our social context, and based on which social role is most prominent in any given circumstance. As I type this, what is most prominent for me is the social role of “teacher” and “PhD in Sociology.” And yet, since I’m at home, as soon as I walk away from this computer, from this reflection, my person (and my feelings and my mood, etc…) shifts into that of “partner” (when talking to my wife) or “solitary human “ (if I am having a moment alone, doing nothing), or of “friend” (as I receive a text), and so on. That is, who I am psychologically is always also shaped by the social context in which I am interacting, along with my overall habitus. I have what is called a “positioned subjectivity” (Bourdieu), which means that my thoughts and feelings and perceptions are shaped by my social position, my community, my access to power and resources.
So, while we are all, every day, out in the world “doing gender” (West and Zimmerman) and hoping for the freedom to be authentic, the social context does not always make that possible. The essays on walking — and for many of you, your own experiences walking — make that clear. We “self police” our own “doing of gender,” which makes clear that perpetual authenticity is not necessarily easily accomplished. More than that, self-policing is not a sign of a personal failure or a lack of strength to “be our true selves,” because self-policing quite often keeps us in relationships, and keeps us alive, which is the ultimate manifestation of being our true selves (if you ask me). More than anything, we are social beings — who are we (in terms of authenticity) if we are not in relationship with others? Never mind that it is most often our most trusted others who positively validate our expressions of personal authenticity. Authenticity is shifting and social!
Which is more of a manifestation of being your true self — staying alive, choosing to maintain an important relationship or wearing an article of clothing that you like? All three. And in our daily lives, we are constantly making choices in navigating all three. Is it harmful and frustrating that sometimes we have to choose between personal expression and physical safety? Yes. But the sociological problem doesn’t lie with the person making the choice. Sociologically, we must explore the institutional context that produces the choice in the first place.
Is it Capitalism that produces social expectations and social institutions that render personal expression more important than some people’s physical safety? Yes. So much so that the police force originated to maintain White racist Capitalist power (remember, authenticity is always also about power) at the expense of the Black community’s physical safety. Who has access to the most authenticity while walking in the world?: wealthy, white, cisgendered, heterosexual, men. Native Americans had to walk the Trail of Tears off of their authentic land. This land I’m on is not authentically mine, as my British and Irish ancestors migrated to this country from the U.K. And yet, the law made them White, and the Constitution protected my ancestors’ access to this land — allowed them to purchase some of it in the Capitalist market — and thus to build wealth, and granted them democratic freedom, which let’s be clear, allowed them, and me, more access to psychological authenticity. As intersectionality theory highlights, because of these power dynamics it has always, for example, been “easier” for me to be out as a lesbian because I am white. Here the conversation about the origins of authenticity shifts to the macro level, as authenticity here is framed as social power.
In addition, personal expression is the ultimate manifestation of capitalist consumerism and individualism — we expect and are expected to be able to buy, consume and wear whatever we want. And, this is so much so that many of us think that personal expression is more important than public health (think about this in the context of attempted bans on sugar-based beverages or more importantly, vaccines and mask wearing now during the pandemic).
So, we could even be asking, sociologically speaking, what’s more important — personal authenticity or public health? Should we grant people their personal authenticity, and allow them into grocery stores without masks, at the expense of public health? Sociologically, the answer is NO, because public health is our priority. On the flip side, when so many are physically harmed as a result of their expressions of personal authenticity (say, wearing a hoodie when walking around in their neighborhood or being clothed in gender non-conforming outfits), then we don’t have sufficient public health, and the latter should always be our focus. That is, for sociologists (where society is our unit of analysis) everyone’s health is always more important than one person’s health. Put another way, as many people have been quoted as saying: “if one of us is in chains, then none of us are free.”
Let’s consider that the inability to find deep or lasting authenticity isn’t a personal problem or failure. To think about this sociologically we have to step away from the individual and think about the larger sociological context that constrains our ability to “do gender” as we wish. It is the larger context of patriarchy — and the gender binary that provides the building blocks of patriarchy — that shapes both the choices we make in the “doing of gender” as well as the ways in which others “determine our gender” (Westbrook and Schilt). As Lorena Garcia made clear, patriarchal white supremacy can have a detrimental impact on our personal health and well being, by way of the kind of health education we experience, for example. And as Coates and Crenshaw and many other scholars we’ve read this semester (and activists in the world) have pointed out, policing in patriarchal white supremacy can be deadly. Mass shootings, in over 50% of cases, are perpetrated by men who have a history of domestic violence. The gender system is a threat to our public health.
While we tend to be focused on our “personal troubles”, as sociologists we must attend to the “public issues” (Mills). That means, rather than get lost in the micro-level nuance of individuals seeking out their authentic selves, we need to be focused on how the system of patriarchal white supremacy is a threat to public health.
Social change requires a number of things:
- Becoming comfortable with being uncomfortable
- Self-care
- Power in numbers
- Resources
But sociologically, it requires understanding the dynamic relationships between the micro level of individuals, the cultural level of ideologies and values, and the systemic level of institutions and policies. Social change requires addressing each level of analysis, and policy is often the last thing we think of, so it’s what requires the most attention. We often realize we need to change ourselves (our own biases, for example). We regularly discuss that cultural values and cultural stereotypes are a problem. But we always, also have to keep focused on how institutions are organized and how policies are written and implemented:
How effective is a welfare policy that is written by millionaires? How can food banks solve hunger when they are funded by food corporations who must make profits, the very same profits that cause poverty, and thus hunger?
It’s not the one “bad” supervisor who is keeping the glass ceiling in place — it’s a myriad of social policies that keep it in place, such as a lack of paternity leave that keeps men working and women at home taking care of newborn children.
#metoo and #blackintheivory make clear that these are patterns across a myriad social contexts, and thus can’t be reduced to the individual level. They also make it clear that social change is possible. The beauty of that which is socially constructed is that it is always open to change. Toxic masculinity and “white fragility” (DiAngelo) are signs of the fragility of the power structures of patriarchal white supremacy. As Rebecca Solnit wrote there is always “hope in the dark.”
Take good care of yourselves, and each other.
Dr. Monica
