Yago Colás wonders if we’re not just chasing a squirrel when we discuss the end of things like gender and men.
This piece is part of a special series on the End of Gender. This series includes bloggers from Role/Reboot, Good Men Project, The Huffington Post, Salon, HyperVocal, Ms. Magazine, YourTango, Psycholog
In his seminal collection of essays entitled Pragmatism, first published in 1907, the American psychologist and philosopher William James tells a story to illustrate what he means by “pragmatism” as a tendency in philosophy. On a camping trip in the mountains, James returned from a solitary hike to find his (rather cerebral) buddies engaged in a heated philosophical debate.
The basis for the debate was the following scenario: a squirrel clings to one side of a tree trunk while a human being stands against the opposite side of the tree. The human moves around the tree to try to catch a glimpse of the squirrel, but no sooner does he move than the squirrel scrambles just as fast in the opposite direction and so always keeps the tree between itself and the human being. The question that James’s friends debated was: “Does the man go round the squirrel or not? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel?” James’ friends were equally divided on the issue and stubbornly entrenched in their respective positions.
James resolved the dispute to the satisfaction of most parties by making explicit what they were really arguing about: the meaning of the phrase “go round.” James explained that “go round the squirrel” might mean either 1) successively occupying each of the four cardinal points of a compass with the squirrel at its center (in which case the answer is “yes”) or it might mean 2) successively occupying a position in front, to the right, behind, to the left, and then again in front of the squirrel (in which the case the answer is “no”).
James used this anecdote to illustrate what he called the “pragmatic method,” and which he employed to settle “metaphysical disputes that might otherwise be interminable.” The idea is that if you want to know what a thought—for example, “go round the squirrel”—means, you just have to trace its practical consequences. When we determine what conduct a thought “is fitted to produce” we have determined the meaning of thought.
♦◊♦
The anecdote came to mind as I wrestled with Hannah Rosin’s proposition that we are witnessing “the end of men”, as well as with the Good Men Project’s counter-proposition that we are witnessing “the end of gender.” To make explicit the parallel to the disputed question in James’s anecdote, it might be useful to reformulate these propositions as questions: “Has the end of men arrived?” and “Has the end of gender arrived?”
Both propositions are likely to be contentious. Indeed, both may, in a sense, be calculated to be contentious in the sense that they aim to provoke conversation and discussion, which might be all for the best. Though I, for one, don’t think that more talk about polarizing issues is always for the best. I think it depends on the kind of talk. For my own part, as I mulled over these propositions and thought about my own experience of men and of gender (and of the words “men” and “gender”), I found myself, to borrow James’s phrase “engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute.” At one moment, I would ridicule Rosin’s proposition and at the next concede its merit. Likewise, by turns I found myself dismissing the idea of “the end of gender” and acknowledging its value.
My internal back and forth, like any real world back and forth among different individuals you might hear discussing these propositions, stems from the fact that the words “end,” “men,” and “gender” have different and not always practically compatible meanings (just like the phrase “go round the squirrel” in James’s example). That accounts for the fact of disagreement, but it doesn’t account for the heated emotions that may accompany such disagreements.
That heat comes, I suppose, from the fact that we are each invested, to some degree, in the truth or falsity of the propositions and in particular meanings of the terms comprising them. So if I think of myself as a “man” in exactly the sense that Hannah Rosin has in mind when she describes what she calls “the end of men,” I may feel anger, sorrow, pessimism, and resistance (if I enjoy being “a man” in her sense of the word) or joy, relief, optimism, and acceptance (if I’ve not enjoyed being “a man” in her sense of the word).
Nobody likes to be told that they can no longer be something that they are used to and have enjoyed being. In the best case scenario, there is change and adaptation involved, which I think is challenging even when it is ultimately positive. In the worst case, there is loss, uncertainty, and fear.
♦◊♦
I want to encourage, as this conversation on the end of gender (or the end of men) gets under way, that we be mindful of James’ example and try to be precise as we discuss and even argue: what, practically, do we mean by “end?” By “men?” By “gender?” What conduct is your idea of “the end of men” fitted to produce? Whatever your answers to those questions, that is the meaning, for you, of “end of men” and “end of gender.”
Once we have spelled out those meanings, we can actually see with precision what, practically, is at stake as well as where our disagreements lie. Failing to define our terms is likely to make for lots of heat and little light and a further polarization of the discussion. I think that would be a shame because these aren’t just words and this isn’t just a discussion for the hell of it. It is our world we are discussing and if the discussion is worth having it is because it may actually affect the way in which individuals think of themselves and behave toward one another in the world.
This doesn’t mean we have to agree. There are probably as many ways of defining—I mean practically defining, I mean living a definition of —“men” and of “gender” as there are men, people who know men, and people of gender. So it just means it would be better—for the discussion and for the real world issues that it touches—if we could be self-aware, explicit, and clear about what we mean, what we disagree about, and why it matters so much to us.
—Photo stefanweihs/Flickr
Sources…
[…]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[…]…
MariaS Thanks for reading and engaging. Sorry for the frustration. I wasn’t trying to be coy. To save time, I’ll just say that I mean more or less what you do by gender (social construction and performance) and by sex (biology), with pretty much the same reservations you expressed. But I’ll also take advantage of your expressed frustration to say a bit more, though none of this, let me be clear, is a response or reaction to anything you said. I’m just using the space (and the fact that I have a bit of time this morning) to say some… Read more »
Yago – it’s frustrating that you offer no examples of the possible meanings of “men” and “gender”. You give James’ explanation of the two different possible meanings of “going round the squirrel”, but no thoughts about the meanings of “men” and “gender”, no reference to foregoing feminist thought on the topic, nor any reference to what these terms either mean to you or your own definition of them, either personally or philosophically. It’s very true indeed that any critical discussion of gender needs to begin by explicitly defining what is meant by the word, if we are to effectively unpack… Read more »
“You do realize the dudeliness of coming late to a debate and raising questions as if nobody has ever raised, or directly answered, them before? Feminism has a long history of defining gender, man, and a post-gendered world.” Wow. In other words there is only one group, one perspective, one idea of gender…the feminist idea of gender? And the dudeliness comment…where have I heard something similar before…ah yes!. Mansplaining. The word feminists use to forestall any questioning of their religion. Why the fuck should I care if feminists have been at this a long time. So what? Is that the… Read more »
Yes, by all means, to acknowledge the existence of pre-existing work that addresses the very questions one is asking is to assert that one must thus take that pre-existing work as holy writ. That is indeed, exactly, precisely what I said.
Good job, Assman!
Goodmen, indeed. Thanks for chiming in, Yago!
Bebel, Haha! Busted! I am a bad, bad man…bad as I wanna be (Dennis Rodman, 1997). I certainly didn’t intend for the questions I raised to be taken as if “nobody has ever raised, or directly answered, them before.” I’m glad you offered these references and the always timely reminder that neither I (nor The Good Men Project) invented the notion of a critical reflection on gender. Of course, in addition to those authors you cite and, indeed, beyond the scope of feminism per se, there are many other philosophers and writers who have reflected upon and explored the meanings… Read more »
I read this as a bit of a dodge. If, as you state below, you love words so much, you should have some love for the words of the past that are directed _precisely_ at the very topic you raise! No academics worth their salt would be taken seriously if they wanted to start a debate / discussion and didn’t do the perfunctory first step of at least a cursory literature review to duly acknowledge the work that’s already been done in the field. This isn’t ambiguous, it’s fundamental. To not do it, as a man, on the very question… Read more »
Yes indeed! If only….. ahem. You do realize the dudeliness of coming late to a debate and raising questions as if nobody has ever raised, or directly answered, them before? Feminism has a long history of defining gender, man, and a post-gendered world. Bad man, bad, bad man. To wit: Shulamith Firestone (1971): ‘the end goal of feminist revolution must be . . . not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally’ Christine Delphy (1993): “If we define men within a gender framework, they are… Read more »